>> yes. >> thank you. >> at least that's what they would say, so yes. because risk-based security is reducing the size of the hay stack in which a terrorist may be hiding, we are focusing our resources on, potentially, higher-risk passengers and the rugs thus far are positive. our commitment to new and innovative technology is a key component of risk-based security, and our success in discovering other nonmetallic items is greatly enhance with the the use of advanced imaging technology or ait. these machine give our officers the best opportunity, mr. chairman, good to see you, sir, the best opportunity to find both metallic and nonme metallic and have successfully found items as small as a piece of gum. we continue working closely with industry to improve its

detection capabilities, but the combination of technology, policy and methodology that drives risk-based security. last month we began a tsa precheck, a voluntary passenger prescreen initiative that's being test inside four airports today placing more focus on prescreening individuals who volunteer investigation about themselves prior to flying. .. >> today, i'm pleased to announce expansion of these

efforts for check points in three more airports as senator boxer alluded to. first of december is lax and minneapolis-st. paul in early 2012 getting us up to seven airports. efforts include a crew member screens system to help positively identify and verify the identity and employment status of airline pilots. under this program being tested at seven airports, tens of thousands of airline pilots have processed through this expedited screening recognizing them as the most trusted people on an aircraft. we evaluated a behavior initiative beginning at the boston-logan airport and tested in detroit. analysis techniques are tested by trained officers to determine if a passenger needs additional screening. this is used worldwide and

enables officers to better verify or dispel behavior anomalies. there's an increase in protecting higher risk passengers who need additional information and data to understand that this trend is statistically significant. in august, there's nationwide procedures for children 12 and under allowing them to leave their shoes on and allow them to go through a less intrusive screening and there's a sharp reduction, not elimination of pat down of children, and families responded very positively to the changes. the reinitiation of the aviation security advisory committee with 24 members named by secretary napolitano and i look forward to meeting with them and hearing their recommendations. innovation, partnership, and commitment to pursuit of excellence are words of the tsa as we move into 2012.

thank you for the opportunity to be here today. >> [inaudible] administrator pistole, you seem to be in a no end position as of late, but that's your position as of late. there's overreliance on physical screening for a period of time with the tap and all of that and everybody got upset, and then you've been urging us to pursue a more risk-based method based on the passengers. now tsa is criticized by various aspects of this approach. clearly, tsa needs a variety of tactics to achieve best results. i just want to ask you a question. you'll never satisfy the american public while trying to keep them safe.

isn't that basically true? >> the key, obviously, is to provide the best security in the most professional way protecting liberties and that's the challenge every day with 8 million travelers every day at 450 airports, there's an opportunity for someone not to be 100% satisfied as in any government and activity, so, yes, it is a challenge. >> my traveling is not as international or bane as some members of this committee, but i have -- actually bane for me gets to be when i get out to jackson hole, wyoming, but i have yet to see a tsa member -- i don't want to seem like your flak here -- be rude on a number of occasions and sometimes

involving translational problems, you know? where they do the best they can. i've seen them go to the farthest point of extending themselves, and on a number of occasions, i got their names and said who is your supervisor because i want to write them and tell them what a good job you're doing, and so it's very interesting. people complain, and then i, you know, i travel, grantedly not as much as i used to before i messed up my knee, but my reaction is a very good one. now, you change your methodologies. you change different technologies. i can remember, i think, five years ago gong through dulles airport and putting my finger on a pad, and i was told that will be operational in a period of

time. that was four years ago. i don't know if they are using that, but you have to adjust, and there's a certain degree of turnover, and some is economic, and you tried your best on that, and other is other opportunities occur, and they take them. are your people keeping up with what it is you want them to do? >> yes. thank you, chairman, thank you for the positive comments. i know the men and women of tsa who work the check points every day appreciate the feedback any time there's a positive because the negative ones are the ones that are heard in the press. clearly, it is a paradigm shift for tsa in the risk-based initiative to get away from one size fits all to look as everybody as a possible terrorist, and so the approach we're taking, which i have by-in from around the country from the work force, is to exercise more common sense, frankly, to look at the person as much as the

prohibited item with the key being let's look for those items that could cause catastrophic failure to an aircraft. that's two components -- an electronic initiator coupled with a math that could be an explosive or maybe a liquid explosive, but it's those two things so the challenge is how do we distinguish between those that we assess, make a judgment about, recognizing this is risk mitigation, not risk elimination, so as we mitigate or manage risk, can we treat those we know more about because they voluntarily shared information with us such as through custom border protection global entry program or through the tsa precheck program we're doing now. if we can do that on the front end, then we know more about them, can make better judgments at the check point so that expedited screening possibility i mentioned over 45,000 people have already gone through, that allows us to focus our limited

resources on those who may pose a higher risk like ones we know only in secure flight or that we know the most about because they are on terrorist watch list. i start every day with an intelligence briefing from around the world, from cia, nsa, fbi, all the security services around the world to say what are the forests thinking? what technologies are they looking at? how are they trying to beat our defenses, and how can we use that in a smart, informed fashion? that's what the risk-based security initiative is all about. >> look, i thank you. granted that was somewhat of a softball as i settled into my position, but i'll ask more interesting questions in the next go around. >> that was an excellent question, senator. >> mr. pistole, in february, we changed the lond standing

prohibbation of collective bargaining, and while the determination prohibits these screeners from striking or engaging in slow downs, it does allow for collective bargaining on non-secure deployment issues. could you update us on the status of that and what you anticipate to be the issues that are involved in a collective bargaining when striking and slow downs are not possible, but hours and the kind of work required if those are in negotiation, i'd like to know if that's going to hamper in any way the effectiveness of your ability to say exactly what needs to be done for security purposes. >> thank you, senator. the short answer is no, it will not affect security in any way. the determination i have from february 4 of this year was to do two things.

one, to recognize a flra decision that required that we hold an election for the purposes of exclusive bargaining, but without regard to -- or excuse me -- exclusive representation with regard to collective bargaining. that didn't make a lot of sense to me, so i was determined to allow officers to vote on whether they wanted collective bargaining because there was already 12,000 union dues without bargaining, and if they voted in favor of a union, then move forward with if at the national level, so that was close between two unions, there was a runoff election after winning that, and so since that time this summer, we've been working through really what is a hybrid labor management relationship that is unique, both in the federal government and, i believe, in the private

sector. because of the authorities given to tsa under the enabling legislation from november 19th of 2001, so what that allows us to do is take off any issues related to security and focus on those issues that i was hearing in town halls around the country important to the security officers. now, there are things like pay and other benefits that are important, but that's not something that i agreed to be subject to collective bargaining along obviously with the right to strike and things like that that would affect security. we've been in discussions with the union on things important to them such as appeal of disciplinary matters, how should they be handled, things such as bitting on shifts they work, issues about uniforms, and things like that, all non-security issues. we're to the point of having ground rules being finalized, and then ready to move forward with them to address issues important to the security officers. >> so you're view that this is

going to be able to work out in a way that will not in any way endanger the security part of their jobs? >> absolutely. again, i have to credit the congress for the inside and the press in terms of apps for enabling legislation that gave a broad discretion of authority recognizing the inherent security issues that were unique to tsa in the aftermath of 9/11, so thank you for that. >> let me ask you about -- you obviously added the program for known travelers to the three new airports, and is it your intention to continue to add more airports as you see the results of what you have now and how it's working, and are you, as you're adding airports, putting new processes in place

because you've learned from something that worked or didn't, and if so, what? >> yes, thank you, senator. yes, the goal is after we expand to las vegas, lax, and minneapolis, and this is an ongoing process, to look at other airports with other carriers. for example, many carriers are going through mergers right now and so their i.t. systems are such that they are not quite ready to move forward, but they will be in the first quarter of next year in some measure, and so i hope to announce additional airlines and airports that would be able to accommodate those passengers, both in those frequent flier programs at elite levels, and then also the cbp global entry people who sign up, pay a fee through that program, so, yes, the goal is to expand it as broadly as possible while maintaining the highest level of

security and, again, all of that on a voluntary basis. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, mr. pistole. >> thank you, senator, and now we go to johnny isakson, 24 -- this side of georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman, very much. in the investigative report we've seen done by wsp in atlanta, there's caught instances on camera of one employee swiping an id turnstile so three other people can go through. as i understand it that's referred to escorting or piggy-backing. where is that permissible and what is not permissible? >> neither would be permissible, but the question, which i don't have the details on this particular instance, are a situation where all four may be authorized access, and it's simply one person holding the

door as curtesy for the other three opposed to swipe. they should each swipe their badge so there's record of their comings and goings. i don't have the details for that particular matter, but that's what we're looking into. >> do you know, and i don't know so i'm asking you, you may not either, but at jackson, was that the first encounter with a security or was there a previous one before that point? >> i don't know specifically. it is airport specific, but -- so at some airports they would go through an exterior security check point, either the vehicle or individuals. i simply don't know on this one. >> i believe part of the reason for swiping rather than having id security is so you know who is at work and who is not and get credit for the hours worked and not worked. for the two md's in terms of food and service, do you

normally -- once you approve a contractor and they go through a certain process to be approved for security, i guess that's true? >> generally what happens is we establish a security requirements for the catering company that the airport enters into a contract with, so we're not necessarily involved with that, but we inspect to the standards to ensure they are following the standards. >> so you have standards the airport has to meet, the airport does the approval of the provider whomever it is. do you randomly or periodically inspect those tsa inspect people to ensure they are complying 3 >> yes, we do hundreds if not thousands of inspections across the country involving -- well, all number of things, but relating to catering companies, we do both random and unpredictable prize inspections if you will both with the airport and the catering

companies to assess whether they are following those security regimens, those protocols that we have. >> when i ran my company for years w had a process of mystery shopping, shoppers tested the employees in terms of service and curtesy. do you use that type of approach from time to time? >> we do, and the inspector general and gao also use those in terms of covert testing looking at what we consider as part of the insider threat, people who have access to secure areas of airports, yes. >> okay. with regard to the inspection process, and i will say in hartsfield-jackson, they do a great job, i travel twice a week sometimes, and it's been very good, but i wonder about the radiation. i think last week you in another committee hearing said you are evaluating the effects of radiation. can you talk about that for a second? >> yes, and since that time,

senator, and, of course, the testing that had been done before we ever employed the advanced imaging technology, the back scatter technology, that all of independent scientific study that is we had demonstrated that the minimal issue the really minute amount of radiation emitted is well below anything that would ever reach even the minimal standards of safety, and the equivalent was three minutes at altitude flying, the natural radiation you receive is equivalent of going through one time. that being said in response to question from senator collins, she asked for and independent study done by dhs, and since that time, there has been an ig report that i just received, it's a draft report, but the ig allowedded me to speak about it here today, which confirms our previous findings based on their study and their analysis, and

they made five or six recommendations that we agree with, but none go to the safety issues which have been called into question, so the belief -- my strong belief is that it is -- those types of machines are still completely safe. they always have been. i want to reassure the traveling public on that, and if it determines -- if the determination is that this ig study is not sufficient, then i will look at it still yet another additional study. >> my time's up. thank you, and thank you to your proper response to my request. >> thank you, senator. senator lautenberg. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i've tried a palace coo, but the team didn't spring to it. i know where the power is, mr. chairman. mr. pistole, one of the many

benefits of travel is the ability to easily and efficiently get on the train, get moving to your destination. what can we do to improve security without sacrificing convenience to the large number of passengers that use rail and public transportation? >> i think, senator, it comes down to the partnership we have, for example, with amtrack and they are very effective deployment of uniformed officers and canines at certain points, certain stations as people enter, some random bag searches, but also their actual presence on the trains, for example so i think that's significant, and it's also the visible protection response that we do, the viper teams that, again, we know from terrorist debriefings they are persuaded by three things, closed circuit tv if not a

suicide bombers, uniformed officers, and k-9s. it's those three things we try to use whether it's amtrack police, metro authorities, whether new jersey or new york, those with the front line speedometers that we can -- responsibilities that we can augment resources through training, personnel, or hardening of targets that we've done, for example, on the path tunnels between new jersey and new york. >> yeah, we, as i mentioned in the opening remark, we don't spend as much as one would think with the amount of travel there is on rail. >> senator, if i can comment on that. if we just look at our budget, that's true, but when we look at the grant funding that we provide, which is not included in our budget, then that ratio changes somewhat significantly,

and it's much more akin to what the actually risk scores that we provided in a classified setting, say, here's where we assess the aviation risk, here's the surface risk, and so when you look at the total funding, frankly, the several billion dollars that we provided in surface transportation through grant funding since our creation, that ratio comes out much more consistent with how we assess risk. >> last year, gao found that tsa needs to do a better job of providing transit security to the areas most vulnerable to attack. what do we do to make adjustments to that process to ensure that funds truly are spent in the highest risk areas? >> one of the things that we've done this year, senator, is to enter into a memorandum of

agreement with fema who actually administers the grant funds where they accept our risk assessment, and then allocate funds based on the risk assessment and based on the demonstrative need, obviously, through the grant application process, and so that, we found, works much better this year than in previous years because we put the money where the highest risk is. the new york metro poll tan area including parts of new jersey receives more than other areas assessed as lower risk. >> yeah, i hope we're going to be pretty observe vaunt about -- observant about this coming into the next year, the next fiscal year because we still have that as a -- as a rule necialght of the most risky two mile stretch between the airport and the harbor, and as we see the review of funding,

we're looking at significant cuts proposed in the areas of grant giving under the homeland security budgets, and i would ask to hear from you as to what you think these cuts are going to mean in terms of your eighty to take care of things. >> right. i think in a nutshell, senator, is really comes down to making sure that we are investing smartly in the highest risk areas. we can't be all things, all people, at all places at all times. we can't mitigate all risk, so based on the intelligence, everything we know, that we are putting our money, our u.s. taxpayer money, towards those highest risks. >> mr. chairman, may i have the curtesy of another? >> of course. >> during the first three months of this year, there were an unusually high number of

breaches at newark liberty. in a meeting in april, you and the newly appointed security directer, indicated tsa would provide a report on specific actions taken in newark to improve security and cut breaches. can you tell me when we can expect this report to be available? >> it should be available in the next -- let's say 30 days. i just saw the draft yesterday. i believe it's ready, so it is don drummer, the national security director, i spoke with him this morning about it, and he's ready to brief you as soon as your schedule allows. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. senator blunt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to talk exclusively about the screening partnership program, and i may have written questions to submit if we don't get through this discussion

today, which we may not. when the program was created, it was created intentionally to see what would happen if there's a private sector out there. does the airport come to you if they want to try this? do they ask you to bid the process for them with someone other than the tsa there now? >> yes, yes. >> or they might also say somewhat other than the private sector person that's running it you? >> yeah. >> you bid that out; is that right? >> yes. the airport comes in saying we want to consider someone other than tsa to run our airport operations. in the past, we looked at those. of course, we have the 16 that were from early on that are continuing, and with sisco the -- san fransisco the largest and a number of smaller airports, and that's a process, and if i could just give you a little bit of

background on my decision from january of this year, i am clearly interested in any best practices, any efficiencies, anything from the private sector that can help us do our job better. we invested billions of dollars in the private sector in terms of technology and ways of accomplishing our mission including hr issues, i.t. issues in addition to issues at the airport, the in-line systems checking 100% of all bags for explosives. we invested taxpayers' billions of dollars in private industry to do just that. as far as that being said with the work force, my approach is that i believe tsa should be a federal counterterrorism agency focused on preventing another 9/11 or something like that from happening. i have greater flexibility with tsa airports in terms of surge capacity in case there is a natural disaster or something

like that, but if i need to move people, i can't move any of the ftpp airport personnel because they are a private company, and there's many of them have their own rules and things, and so i'm limited in that, but the other part is trying to push out classified intelligence to as many people as we can so i expanded the number of people within tsa with access to classified information to help them make better judgments and decisions. that's my philosophical approach, but i'm open to applications from airports. we approved, i believe, five renewals of the 16 this year, so i want to keep those in place assuming they are doing the best possible job. i would note even those privatized airports, there's arguments made, well, we could save lots and lots of money if they were privatized. >> leaving the hearing at this point. go to c-span.org to watch this

any time. the u.s. senate is about ready to gavel in for the day with general speeches, and then legislative work at 10. they are taking up a legislation to nullify an epa role regarding cross-border resolution. another resolution nullifying the fcc's net neutrality rule takes place this afternoon. then refeeling a 3% withholding tax from certain contractors. amendments and votes on that bill are expected this afternoon. now to live coverage of the u.s. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god, our father, you have

commanded the light to shine out of darkness. accept our gratitude for your bountiful mercies. as our nation prepares to celebrate another veterans day, we praise you for the heroism of those who died to keep america free and for your loving providence that continues to sustain this land we love. lord, thank you for the legacy of service and sacrifice perpetuated by our military members and their families and we ask you to continue to protect those in harm's way.

as we honor the memories of those who gave the last full measure of devotion, infuse us with a greater determination to protect and preserve the liberties upon which our republic was founded. use our senators today as instruments of your peace. we pray in your great name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the

clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington d.c., november 10, 2011. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable tom udall, a senator from the state of new mexico, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. #. the presiding officer: the majority leader is recognized. mr. reid: the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. at 10:00 a.m. there will be two hours of debate. around noon two roll call votes on the motion to proceed the joint resolution of disapproval regarding net neutrality and cross-border air pollution. there will be votes in regard to h.r. 674, the 3% withholding repeal act and a cloture vote on the motion to proceed on the energy water appropriations bill will occur later in the afternoon. these votes are currently scheduled for 2:30 today but we

expect to get a unanimous consent agreement to begin those as early as 1:45 today. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the time under the previous order for rupblgs of considers -- resumption of consideration of h.r. 674 be modified and the senate resume the bill at 1:30 p.m. and the previous order remain in effect. all after the first vote be ten minutes. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. mr. reid: with this agreement, mr. president, the senate will resume consideration of the bill at 1:30 with up to 15 minutes of debate prior to the votes. there will be a series of up to four roll call votes beginning at 1:45. unanimous consent unanimous consent requests mr. president, that caroline tess, a state department detailee are granted floor privileges during the remainder of this congress. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i'd like to start today on a positive note. later this very day the two parties will come together to do something we haven't been doing enough of around here. we'll pass a jobs bill on a bipartisan basis. then we'll send it back to the house where we hope it will pass shortly. in other words, we're going to legislate.

i know that might sound like a little of a groundbreaking idea to some on my side who would rather spend their time on legislation sending a political message. as i've been saying for weeks now, we've got two choices. we can either acknowledge the fact that we live in a two-party system and work together on legislation both parties can embrace. or we can spend our time, as democrats have for the past two months, putting together legislation that's designed to fail. house republicans have chosen the former approach. since taking over the majority earlier this year, they've searched for common ground when it comes to jobs legislation. and they found it. passing more than 20 bills aimed at spurring the economy and creating jobs have attracted strong bipartisan support. meanwhile the democratic majority here in the senate has opted for the latter approach.

taking their queues from the political team at the white house, senate democrats spent most of their time trying to make republicans look bad instead of looking for ways to work with us on meaning jobs legislation. but today they have taken a break from all of that. and i'm pleased to say the two parties will pass two important pieces of jobs legislation. senator brown's 3% withholding bill which eases the burden on government contractors freeing up more money that they can use to expand and to hire, and a veterans bill sponsored by senator murray that not only helps returning veterans, but the business that is hire them. on their own, these bills won't solve our jobs crisis. far from it. no single piece of legislation can. but this attempt at bipartisanship has been used to get them over the finish line. it represents our best shot at making progress on jobs in the economy as long as republicans have the majority in one half of

congress and democrats have the majority in the other. we can still improve on the process, of course, through greater consultation within the committee of jurisdiction. but it's a good start, nonetheless. this is phou divided government -- this is how divided government works. genuine cooperation and a search for common ground. it's what republicans on the joint committee have been doing the past several weeks and what house republicans have been doing for the past year on legislation of the kind that will actually pass today. now this isn't to say that we shouldn't have open, full-throated debates that showcase our differences. 2002 parties clearly have different points of view twhe comes to restoring the economy and creating jobs. that's why we'll also have a vote today for the mccain-paul -- excuse me. the mccain-paul-portman bill which aims at unleeching the

private sector instead of shackling it with more government as our democratic friends propose. the mccain-paul-port man bill is a clear alternative to the president's failed model of analysts stimulus. members should have a chance to express support for it. and i'm glad we will as long as we can vote on things we all agree on. my message is let's build it up, and move on to other jobs bills that have already passed the house on a very broad bipartisan basis. i've highlight twaod of them already. today i'll highlight two more. the access to capital for job creators act, h.r.2940 and h.r. 23930 twaorbgs bills that make -- h.r. 2930, two bills that make it easier for businesses to generate income over the internet.

here's a way for the little guy to raise money for his or her business. we all know access to capital is one of the key ingredients to economic growth. here's a way to make it easier for folks to get that capital that also creates new avenues for the little guy to invest. senators thune and scott brown have companion bills here in the senate. we should take them up and we should pass them. you don't hear a lot about republicans and democrats agreeing on legislation these days, but here's some we do actually agree on. so i'd say let's take them up, pass them and send them to the president for his signature. the obama administration has already said it supports these ideas. 169 democrats in the house voted for one of these bills last week and 175 voted for the other. and republicans support both overwhelmingly as well. so let's do it. let's build on the momentum we

have today after passing the 3% holding and the veterans bill. let's show the american people we've discovered and embraced a formula for success around here. now, mr. president, on another issue, tomorrow's a very important day, a very important day: veterans day. the day we set aside to honor the service and sacrifice of the heroic men and women who served in the united states armed forces. america remains a beacon of freedom throughout the world today because of the commitments and sacrifices they have made. over the years many brave americans donned their country's uniform to ensure that we would remain safe and free here at home. my own state of kentucky has a

proud and honorable military history, and today is home to both fort knox and fort campbell which together house thousands of soldiers. the commonwealth is also home to scores of brave national guard members and reservists. the efforts of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines from kentucky and all 50 states continue today as our fighting forces courageously defend freedom from dangerous enemies all around the world. i've been honored to meet with the families of bluegrass state service members who have been lost in war. i'd like to share with my colleagues a little of what they told me about how proud they are of their loved ones' service. one soldier's son said nobody wants to see their father die. but to have it be while doing something of this significance, we're proud of him. another soldier's widow told me, there are no great words in a time of deep tragedy, but surely

there are great men in the midst of great tragedy. and i'll never forget what a preacher said of his lost congregant. he didn't want to die. he didn't intend to die. but he was willing to lay down his life. that's what a hero is. on veterans day, we pay tribute to everyone who ever bore arms in service of this nation. we can express our thanks and our gratitude to those who are still with us, and we must honor in our memories those who did not return home. we pay tribute to the families of our service members too, because they have made a sacrifice as well by loaning america their sons, daughters, husbands and wives. and we pay tribute to the indomitable american spirit that is essential to the survival of liberty. it is thanks to america's veterans and their exceptional service that we have upheld this

spirit. lastly, i'd like to offer best wishes for a happy birthday to our marines deployed across the globe, especially to our kentucky marines who have been such a source of pride to the commonwealth. and on a related matter, mr. president, i want to recognize eastern kentucky university located in richmond, kentucky, for all the school has done on behalf of kentucky's veterans. e.k.u. has been named one of the top universities in the nation for veterans for the second consecutive year. the recognition was given to e.k.u. by "the military times" edge magazine for the university's commitment to help military men and women advance their education. they made a commitment over the past several years to make the institution more hospitable to america's brave veterans. this includes dropping admission fees for undergraduate veterans,

granting in-state invasion for all -- tuition for all veterans. e.k.u. is a commitment to better education for our nation's heroes and has by all accounts been a huge success. in addition to receiving national recognition from the veterans community, the university has seen its veteran population grow by some 40% in the last year. so today on the eve of veterans day, i wish to honor eastern kentucky university for its dedication to better-serving our country's brave veterans and to congratulate the university and president doug whitlock on this well-deserved recognition. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:00 a.m. with senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided and controlled between the two

leaders or their designees. mr. barrasso: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming is recognized. mr. barrasso: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i come to the floor today to talk about the environmental protection agency, the e.p.a., and they're implement ago cap-and-trade program for what's called cross-state air pollution. now, i oppose this new regulation, and i support the resolution of disapproval that we'll be voting on later today. led by the earnings washington bureaucrats are tying up america with red tape. they're tying up our nation and they're tying up the american people. this year alone, the e.p.a. has issued over 400 final rules. use thithese are rules that do e effect of law. that's over two rules per day so far that each day that the "federal register" has been open for business in 2011. imagine any business in the united states -- in our home

communities -- businesses having to comply with two new e.p.a. rules each day that you're open for business, and of course if you don't comply, then you face thousands of dollars in fines. this is just business as usual for the e.p.a. thousands of rules are filling the "federal register." i'm sorry, 70,000 pages this year alone. the cost of rules issued this year are estimated to eclipse the $100 billion mark. it is time to stop washington bureaucrats. they're issuing excessive rules without considering their impact on our economy. the problem is that this administration does not believe that there is a regulations problem. they think that regulations -- more regulations actually create jobs rather than harm jobs. now, fortunately, a previous

congress passed and president clinton signed into law what is called the congressional review act. this law gives us our best tool to dismantle bad regulations, and we should use it when appropriate. majority leader reid, one of the authors of this congressional review act, described the process as a reasonable, sensible approach to regulatory reform. i believe that the senate should use it here today. the senate should take back some responsibility instead of letting unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats continue to harm our economy. i am standing here today to support senator rand paul's resolution to nullify the e.p.a.'s cross-state air pollution rule. the e.p.a.'s cross-state air pollution rule was finalized approximately three months ago. it is already costing americans jobs. over the summer, officials at a texas utility threw up their hands and said they can't

comply. they said it was too costly, too burdensome. 500 jobs in texas were lost as a result. the e.p.a.'s own estimates say another 2,500 jobs will be lost because of this very regulation. private-sector analysis puts the job and cost numbers much higher. the cross-state air pollution rule puts limits on electricity generation for over half the country. it forces washington's heavy hand on over 1,000 coal, gas, and oil-fired facilities across 28 states. originally designed for states in the east, the e.p.a. now continues to expand the rule to capture more and more states in the west. the newest version of the rule imposes new requirements for kansas, oklahoma, texas, iowa, and wisconsin. the compliance costs are very high. by the e.p.a.'s own estimate, the rule will cost over $2.4

billion. the e.p.a. also notes that part of these costs will be passed on to u.s. households in the form of higher electricity rates. well, the cross-state air pollution rule demonstrates how bureaucrats simply do not understand how job creators work and operate their businesses all across this country. the implementation time line that the e.p.a. has proposed is nearly impossible to follow. the rule as finalized on august 8, which leaves less than six months for companies and states to act and meet the new mandates by january of 2012. the office of management and the budget even warned that there would be consequences of such a drastic change in such a short amount of time. well, mr. president, in conclusion, this resolution of disapproval will tell the bureaucrats to do their job but

do it following the rules of the road. we all want clean air, and we want it done in a responsible way. this e.p.a. is rushing through rules, causing a train wreck in our economy, our jobs, and our competitiveness as a nation will suffer. senator paul's resolution will save at least 3,000 american jobs and also prevent a rise in electricity costs for american families. by adopting this resolution today, we will help our job creators and help them be more competitive in the global marketplace. it is common sense to rein in the e.p.a. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from illinois is recognized. mr. durbin: i have great respect for my colleague who just spoke, but i disagree. and i urge my colleagues to take a careful look at the rand paul resolution of disapproval when

it comes to this issue of air pollution. and i would commend the remarks of our colleague, snorkely ayotte of new hampshire, who spoke on the floor of the united states senate urging the same position to oppose rand paul's resolution. she said she could not support that resolution. the cross-state air pollution rule -- and i quote from senator eyayotte's floor at the same tie -- "is designed to -- new hampshire is a downwind state." swheents on to argue that this rule which was first implemented six years ago -- this is not a new idea coming through the -- this administration. it's been here for years -- is simple justice. why in the world should the people downwind of a polluting state have their lifestyle and opportunity to expand businesses affected? shouldn't we have reasonable standard ofs that if the air pollution which you put in the

air is going to cross over the border, which it naturally will, and affect the air quality in 00 neighboring state, you have a responsibility? well of course you do. but that unfortunately, the position senator paul has taken, is that we shouldn't have any standards, we shouldn't have any rules. i would also suggest that there are utility companies, one that visited my office yesterday, that agree with my position. they want to have a good rule when it comes to this cross-state air pollution. john roh is the executive of a company called exon, commonwealth edison. they've acquired plants in many different locations. he was here on the hill yesterday as a utility executive lobbying against rand paul's resolution of disapproval. if you believe the earlier statements made by my colleague and friend, senator barrasso, you would assume that the power industry is opposed to the e.p.a. and this position.

not true. many forward-looking utility executives have made decisions to lessen air pollution, and now if the paul resolution is enacted, all of their investment will have been for nothing other than their own self-satisfaction. they have tried to live up to a standard in the law which senator paul now wants to eliminate. that's a misstaifnlgt and it is a mistake because it really rewards bad conduct. when we come up with new standards to make america healthier and safer, it's interesting the reaction. some corporate leaders, when they hear of a new standard that might make the air cleaner, water purer, say that's it. we've heard from the government, we've got to go out and hire a lawyer and a lobbyist to fight t others say, that's it. we believe the standard is reasonable, we're going to hire the engineers to make it work. the second approach is one we should reward. the first approach will be

rewarded if senator paul has his way. and eliminates this air pollution standard. yesterday lisa jack sornings the administrator of the environmental protection agency, came to my office. i talked to her. i said, many times we speak about air pollution in the most general and theoretical terms. to me, it's a very personal thing. i invited her and every one of my colleagues, including my colleagues from wyoming and idaho and other states, to step forward the next time they visit a classroom in a school and ask a simple question to the students assembled there, a question i ask every time i visit a schoo school. i ask the students, how many of you know someone who is suffering from asthma? without fail, half of the students or more will raise their handles. it is a mistake for us to ignore this epidemic of pulmonary disease which is literally claiming lives every single day in our country. it is a mistake for us to ignore

the fact that this public health hazard aferred ai of air polluts asthma suffers suffer more. two weeks ago i was at a hospital and met with some of the parents of asthmatic children. it is a hard-breaking situation. i cannot imagine what it is like to be sitting there on the bedside of your daughter or son when they say, "i can't breathe." that's the reality of asthma in its worst situation. maybe that's not the worst situation. i can recall visiting emergency rooms at children's hospitals in chicago and having emergency room physicians say, i've had teenagers walk in here and say, i have asthma, i can't breathe, and i sat there and watched them die. there was nothing i could do about it. that is the reality of asthma and pulmonary disease. that is the reality of pollution. and if senator paul and his followers have their way, we will reduce the standards for

clean air in america, we will endanger more people with asthma and pulmonary conditions, and we will pay a heavy price, not just in the human suffering and death but in the health care costs associated with it. why is it when the republicans are asked to come up with a way to create jobs in america, their first stop is to eliminate the e.p.a.? why is it that the house of representatives, republican-dominated house, boasts that they have a jobs bill and you look and find on 168 separate occasions this year they tried to take away the authority of the environmental protection agency to protect our air and the water that we drink? is that really the path to economic prosperity in america? the filthy skies that we see in some cities around the united states, the smog that is attended to it, and of course if you go overseas to china, you can cut the air with a knife

24/7. that is the reality of an unregulated business environment. it is a reality that we can change. we can change it with thoughtful regulation. we can change by dedicating ourselves to public health and safety. and we can change by supporting those rules which are consistent with improving public health. i want to salute senator ayotte for her statement on the floor, senator alex ander from tennessee joined her. we believe there will be a handful of stalwart republicans who will step up with us today to defeat the paul amendment. they believe, as we do, this is not a partisan issue. it does our country no good to declare war on the environmental protection agency and to leave ourselves vulnerability to all the death and disease that will follow if we don't do something meaningful to deal with air pollution. i think we can. and i think we should. and i hope we can do it on a bipartisan basis. mr. president, when i playbook -- listen to the suggestions about creating jobs, i think

many on the other side overlook the obvious. when we are looking for more energy efficiency and cleaner energy, we are pushing the envelope on technology, we are asking for innovation,en entrepreneurship and new employment to reach it. it is an exciting opportunity for us across this country. i recently visited two weeks ago a new coal-fired plant in southern illinois near my home area where i was born. it's across the road from a coal mine, and they have put on that plant $1 billion worth of scrubbers and cleaning devices to reduce air pollution. they made the investment because it was the right thing to do, and it is a standard that really is moving us forward as a country. so that we can say to the american people, we can produce the energy we need for our economy to create jobs and grow but do did in a sensible fashion. if the republican leadership in

the house has its way, the environmental protection agency will all but disappear. maybe that's their way to expand the economy, but it's not mine. i would rather be creating jobs for energy efficiency and new energy technology right here in the united states so that we end up with cleaner air and purer water. i'd rather do that than to watch the rand paul approach pass and find ourselves creating jobs, sadly, on the backs of those who are suffering from asthma. i don't doubt if there are more asthmatics there will be the need for more emergency rooms, more nu bil *euzers, more treatment. we need those folks but shouldn't make their tasks harder or more difficult by increasing the number of children who are suffering from asthma that is the direct consequence of watering down the

air pollution laws in a way that senator paul will try to do later today on the floors of the stphaeufplt let's have respect -- floors of the united states senate. let's vote down this rand paul resolution. mr. president, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: mr. mcconnell:. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum? the presiding officer: we are. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. morning business is closed. the republican leader is recognized. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to s.j. res. 27. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to the consideration of senate joint resolution 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 presiding officer: under the previous order, there will be two hours of debate equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees. who yields time?

mr. paul: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: 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 a 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. two million new people out of work since this president took office. and yet, we continue to add regulation upon 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'm 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're 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 is becoming cleaner and cleaner. emissions have gone down with each successive decade. we're asking the regulations already on the book stay in place and we do not make the regulations so onerous that we put utility plants out of business and that we have an inability to supply electricity to this country. over 50% of your 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 that would be the desire of his policies, if that should occur, be prepared for brownouts in your big cities. big prepared for days when there will not be electricity. but also be prepared for

job-killing unemployment. the question is can we have clean air and jobs? absolutely. but to have clean air and jobs, you must have balance. we're at the point of becoming so overzealous and of overreaching to such a great extent that we are killing jobs. we are killing industry. and 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%. i need to repeat that because if you listen to the hysterics, you would think otherwise. you would think the statue of

liberty will shortly be under water and the polar bears are all drowning and that we're dying from pollution. it's absolutely and utterly untrue. all of the statistics -- and these are statistics from the e.p.a. all of the statistics from government, from government, from the e.p.a. show declining pollution. everything about this argument is that the environment has been improving for decades. john stosz sell has done a program on this and he asked fifth tkpwraeurpdz do you think the -- graders do you think the environment is cleaner now or 30 years ago? all of our students have been brain washed by environmental his sterbg reubgs who say it is worse now. mere's some statistics. we're talking about regulating two emissions that come from utility plants. the first is sul far dioxide -- sulfur dioxide. you can see the average. the average has been going down

every decade. we have reduced sulfur dioxide just in the last six years by 45% under the current regulations. if we go to, and look at the nitrous oxides which are also regulated under this series of regulations, you can also see we've been in decline. the existing rules are working. nitrous oxides which can create ozone are down 45% in the last five years. the existing rules are working. all we're arguing for is that we not become overzealous, that we not overreach, that the regulators and the regulations not become job-killing regulations. that's where we're headed. this administration has proposed a series of radical environmental changes to our law. these are regulations that are being written by unelected

bureaucrats that we in congress are not having a say in. so what i'm 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 you look at jobs and you look at what will happen to jobs, you will see that these regulations simply this regulation alone could cost as much as 50,000 jobs. indirectly, the people who work for those who would be losing their jobs, as much as 250,000 indirect jobs could be lost from this. and so 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 said will say, republicans do believe

in clean air and clean water. but we also believe in jobs. and it's a balancing act in our country and in all of our communities to try to have both jobs and a clean environment. but you have to look at the facts. you cannot become hysterical and say the other side's for pollution. that's the kind of stuff we're hearing. we're all for clean air. we're all for clean water. and we should all be for jobs. my concern is that the president has allowed radicals to take over the administration, has allowed environmental extremists to take over policy. and as a consequence, we are losing jobs. if you look at what will happen -- and it's important to note. people think they plug into the wall their election car and that has nothing to do with coal? 50% of your electricity comes from coal. does that mean it's perfect?

no. emissions have been declining decade after decade after decade. while coal-fired power has nearly doubled in the last several decades, we're having to produce more electricity from coal in the last several decades, emotions have declined 60%. we are doing a good job with the current rules. let's don't kill off industry. let's don't kill off jobs. let's don't put our citizens at risk during the height of a summer and height of a heat wave from not having electricity or from the height of the cold waives in winter for not having enough electricity to heat their houses. alarmists like al gore and others would have you believe that everything is worse and the world is on the edge of some sort of cataclysm f. we allow them to control our debate, if we don't talk reason blip and

rationally about the facts, if we don't look at the statistics of what's been occurring to control emissions, we're not going to get anywhere. i'm asking we base our discussion on rational facts and not on emotions. to give you an idea of where one of our extremists is coming from, there is one of them who has called for a planetary law. she wants a planetary law of one child per family because she's worried about the carbon footprint of the worst polluters in the woel whorld. you know -- in the whole world. you know who she thinks the worst pollutants in the whole world are? humans. for breathing. she says we have far too many breathers and the way to reduce them is to have one child per family. i don't think we can let the debate get out of control here. today's debate is about overreach. i'd like to give you an example. if you want to see, just think

in your mind about what cities looked like in 1900. we have a picture here of pittsburgh where i was born in 1905 and a picture of pittsburgh today. may not be taoeubl see the pick -- able to see the picture from a distance but you can get an idea that throughout pittsburgh it was smog and pollution and it was heavy. they say at noon in pittsburgh that the street lanterns were on because you couldn't see through the smog and the smoke.here's p. we're not arguing for no rules. the rules we have in place have been working. what we are argue something not to let the rules become so overzealous, not to become so onerous that we kill jobs and we kill industry. it has to be we want a clean environment and jobs. we have to have a balanced approach to this, 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 and infectious mortality have become 1/100th of what they were before electricity. for all of the advance of civilization, there are advantages and there are disadvantages. as we have advanced from an industrial society, there have been problems, but we've been ironing out those problems for 100 years now and we are doing a good job of doing that and we shouldn't allow the regulations to become so own you areous that we begin to lose jobs -- so onerous that we begin to lose jobs. now, one of the other things that people argue about and one of the big health concerns that have with regard to pollution is with regards to asthma. the interesting thing is if you look at all the statistics an

owl of the emissions from our power plants, all of these declining lines are emissions. emissions have been going down decade upon decade upon decade. the incidence of asthma has been rising. so if you are looking at this chart, you would say, maybe emissions declining is inversely proportional to asthma. well, the other argument could be, maybe they're not related at all. but they definitely aren't proportional. so you aren't seeing rising incidents of asthma because we're having increased pollution. we have decreased pollution and rising incidents of smavment so either they're inversely proportional or they're not related at all. this is an important point because what comes out of the hysteria of the environmental extremists are, you'll hear people stand up and say, half a million people are going to die if this goes through. er you know, the vice president recently said that 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 true should be spurned. we should think about things calmly and rationally and decide, can we have clean air and jobs? so 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 relevance has been rising pretty much everywhere. now, the other side will say, but the american lung association says pollution is making asthma worse. you know what? the e.p.a. actually gave the american lung association $5

million, so i think their objectivity has been somewhat tainted. if you look at asthma incidents and you say, well, where is asthma the worst? well, interestingly, asthma is worst 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. so as we look to these statistics, we need to be concerned, one, about the cost of these new regulations; we need to be concerned about having balance between job creation and between job-killing regulations. i'm afraid what's happened is we've opened up the white house and this administration to environmental extremists, the kind of people who say that, well, the polar bears are drowning. you know the whole thipg on the polar bears was based on the citing two of polar bears on an

aceberg and they all of a sudden start saying this. once you start counting the polar bears, apparently they are not in decline. within 50 years the statue of liberty will be under water ... this is the kind of hysteria you don't want to drive policy on. it is the kind of hysteria when your brother-in-law are out of, we need to be concerned about regulatory overreach. another thing we're concerned about is what will happen with these new regulations with electricity rates. we have a map here that shows across the united states what will happen. when you think about your electricity rates going up and the expense to this, think about who gets hit worst: irk the working class and senior citizens on fixed income. 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 supportinsupporting themselves s trying to pay for their electricity. in some regions electricity could go up almost 20% with this series of regulations that this administration is proposing. this is throughout the country. it's more in some areas than others. but it will go up dramatically, and that is the danger of allowing these new regulations is what will happen to electric rates and will poor people in the winter or the heat of the summer be able to afford their electricity because the cost of these regulations is real. the cost of these regulations will be passed on to the consumer, and there are dangers, significant dangers, of there being periods of time in large city where there's not enough electric to go around and the electrical grid overwhelmed. as we go forward and as you begin to hear some of the hysteria that will occur from the other side, be aware that

what we're arguing for is not the elimination of regulations. we are arguing for continuing the existing regulations, which the two additio emissions that e talking about have declined over the decades. sulfurrify oxide has declined 70%. nitrous oxide has declined over 50% over the last several decades. so the question is, if we're doing an adequate job, if we're 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 the rate of electrical costs? one of the reasons might be if you are cynical -- one of the reasons might be because the president wants to reward some of thinks campaign contributors. for example, solyndra -- the owners of solyndra, which makes solar panels -- or did; they've

now gone bankrupt after they ate up $500 million of your money -- perhaps this is more of a political argument, that he doesn't like certain industry, but he likes other industry. so he's willing to spend your money -- $500 million worth -- on one company. $500 million is still a considerable amount of money. i'll nate in perspective. in kentucky we get over $400 million, about $420 million to pave our roads annually each year out of the gas tax we pay. 35 states get about the same amount. yet the president saw fit, because he's been consumed with this environmental extremism, he saw fit to give $500 million, more than 35 states get for their highway fund, he saw fit to take that money and give it to one political contributor because a decided that he wants -- because he's decided that he

wants more suspensionive electricity, he wants electricity that is produced by people who have been his campaign contributors. as we look at addes 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, whetherst whether or not we want or care about can we have a clean environment and jobs. i think we can have both. i think we can have both clean air, clean water, and jobs, but it will require a balanced approach. and my fear is that these regulations -- if these regulations go forward, the balance will become imbalanced, that there will be job-killing regulations that will cause electric rates to go up and cause us to have significantly more economic problems than we're already in. so, mr. president, i call at this time for my colleagues to consider supportin supporting ts resolution, which will be a disapproval of these new and

onerous regulations, and i reserve the remainder of my time. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: mr. president, would you let me know when i've used five minutes, and then i'm going to yield to senator reid for up to eight minutes. the presiding officer: the chair will do so. mrs. boxer: well, i have to say -- and i want to be clear about this -- if the paul resolution passes, which i don't think it will it's so he can extreme -- people in 38 states, 248 million people would be adversely impacted with filthy, dirty air. and i would ask unanimous consent to place into the record the list of the 38 states, mr. president, and the impact on the people there. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: in the senator's

own state of kentucky, in his own state of kentucky the predictions is, based on science, that between 530 people and 1,400 people will succumb to premature death. so we're not talking about some political argument. we're talking about the very life and death of the people we represent. i want to thank senators durbin, whitehouse, lautenberg, and ayotte for already speaking out against the paul amendment. but i hope today we'll 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 you can't breathe you can't work, mr. president, and we are dealing with jobs, many, many,

many jobs -- over a million jobs -- that are created as a result of clean technology. now, senator paul insulted the people of america. there was a poll just taken last month. 67% of voters support the cross-state air pollution rule. that's 85% of democrats, 68% of independents, and 48% of republicans. are they extremists? no. they're mainstream. are the groups who support this rule extremists? and i think that the senator owes an apology to the american lung association for making it sound like they are for air pollution rules because they're getting some kind of payoff. it is an outrage, a complete outrage. he does think the national association of county and health officials are extremists? does he think -- he said the american lung association. he already attacked them.

how about the american nurses association, does he think they're extremists? does he think president richard nixon was an extremist when he signed the clean air act and he said "clean air, clean water, open spaces -- these should once again be the birthright of every american." richard next son -- does he think richard nixon was an extremist? he wants to repeal a very important rule that's going to clean up the air, that's going to reduce toxic soot, toxic poissopoison soot. let me say this. mr. president, i know all of us, 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's what this cross-air pollution rule is about. it's about states that don't crack down on pollution, they have smokestacks that blow over the pollution into other states and they say, isn't it wonderf wonderful? we don't really have any problem here. it's your problem. when i said this analogy, senator carper corrected me. he said, well, you're right. it is a good analogy as far as it goes. but garbage isn't usually poison. so i'll amend my analogy to say this: if we knew someone a 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. and that's what this rule is about.

now, i want to talk about specifics rather than the vague. this rule that senator paul seeks to cancel out, 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 school days. it is estimated to provide up to $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014. so all this flaming ard of arms and calling people traoepblgsists simply -- extremists simply cannot erase the facts that what senator paul is doing is extreme, is hurtful to our people. how many people feel good when they look at a child like this, who is desperately seek air?

desperately seeking air. here's the exhaleer. here's the inhaler. exhale from these dirty plants and inhale clean air. and it reminds me of a story i just read in "the new york times" that talks about china. china, where at the end of the day what happens there is -- the presiding officer: the senator has used five minutes. mrs. boxer: i would ask for one minute and then i will yield eight to senator reid. 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 breathe filthy, did y air. in a recent trip there our group did not see the sun for seven days. china's leaders are basically insulated from beijing's foul air. that is the story in the times. the privileged elite of china include purified air. we have to clean up the air for everybody. not just an elite few. so i think that senator paul, that his c.r.a., his resolution under the c.r.a. should be soundly defeated. and at this time i would yield 8 minutes to senator jack reed. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: mr. president, i appreciate very much the senator

from -- senator boxer, the custom i think is we're going back and forth. if you want to finish your statement? mrs. boxer: i would like to address that if i could for a moment. i was going to speak for a much longer block, but i didn't. i yielded the time to senator reed and i retained the time that i have. i only did it because he was trapped in a hearing. but it's up to the two of you. mr. reed: i think, senator, if you want to finish your statement and then recognize senator coats, that would be appropriate. that's the procedure. i think it's appropriate to alternate back and forth. mrs. boxer: i'm happy to do that. i'll retain my time and yield to senator -- 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 -- my understanding is we're going back and forth. i think we should stay with that order. i appreciate the senator from rhode island's support for that.

i'm just standing up here, mr. president, to, in support of senator paul's resolution. the word "extreme" has been 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 which have been extraordinary gains in terms of air pollution controls. hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent over the last couple of decades to provide some much-needed, much-appreciated clean air all across the country. are we 100% there yet? no. are we a long way towards 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 retro fitting 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's based on major, huge industries producing what america needs to move people around and to create the kind of economy that 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, long way. there's 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 that is needed to run this economy have time to finish what they've started? senator paul has said this rule that's come out of e.p.a., you've got until january 1 rand that's it. i've got a plant on the ohio river spending hundreds of millions of dollars in retro fit. they can't immediate this deadline. they're now in a position of having to decide throw this money away and waste everything they've already put in -- and they're halfway through the process -- and close the plant down completely. six plants will close down in indiana, it is projected.

that increases utility rates not just to consumers but to our manufacturers at the level of 20% to 25% 230% increased utility rates. at a time when our economy is struggling, is this something we want to add particularly for industry that is committed to going forward but just needs a little bit more time? that's the purpose of this resolution being offered before us. i'm hoping we'll take a reasonable view over the gains we've achieved overt decades we have been at work, the clean air we have achieved, the commitment to the goal, the final goal of the clean air act but doing it in a reasonable time frame and cost-effective way that doesn't throw our economy into a further level of distress in terms of the number of jobs that we need and the amount of money that has to be spent to achieve that. with that, mr. president, i

yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. reed: thank you very much, mr. president. mr. president, i rise in strong opposition to the proposal by senator paul to preempt the implementation across state air pollution rules. we recognize throughout this country of extraordinary employment challenges, in rhode island particularly, but in every state. and these are challenging times. but our focus should be not; be on undermining protections for the public, public health protections. our focus should be on job creation, as the president has suggested through his jobs act. that's what we should be doing. this is one of a series of proposals -- and i've seen many of them as the chairman of the subcommittee on interior appropriations, to essentially eviscerate the ability of the e.p.a. to protect the health of this country and its people.

and what has struck me during these debates is that we are sort of in a way victims of our success. i'm old enough to remember when the cuyahoga river in cleveland was on fire because there was no control effectively of what would be dumped into rivers and streams throughout this country. where clean air was something that was a sought-after goal, not a reality in so many parts of the country. if you just look at the experience in the state of california, senator boxer's state, in 1976 there were health advisories constantly because of the poor air. but a combination of e.p.a. regulations, california regulations have seen the average of these health alert days in which frail and elderly couldn't go outside, young children were advised not to play outside, it was very difficult to put up with the smog and the congestion, fell from an average of 173 days a

year -- half the year in the 1970's -- to about six days in 2000. 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 1970's. this attempt by senator paul is one of many to reverse that progress and the assumption things will stay the same. no, they'll get much worse actually. this rule has been carefully evaluated. it's been through several different procedures, rulemaking processes. it's 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. that they would avoid 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 more asthma attacks, 19,000 hospital emergency room visits, all of

that tremendous cost. indeed, the estimate of cost to industry of about $2 billion to $3 billion pales in comparison to the conservative estimates of the benefits. $1230 billion to $28 -- 120 billion to $280 billion if this rule goes into effect. the essence of this rule effectively, though, is, as senator boxer also suggests is making us all better neighbors. we have a 10% unemployment rate in rhode island. 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. from the midwest being transported to rhode island, those people creating it should pay for it. we're paeulg for it. we're -- paying for it. we're subsidizing electricity rates in part of this country that are taking jobs from rhode island. it's not only fair, it's bad, bad policy. in rhode island specifically, only 5% of ozone pollution is from local or in-state sources. 5%. 95% comes from outside of our borders, particularly the midwest. it's transported. that's at the heart of this rule, to give us a chance not only to protect ourselves and to control our own pollution, but not be subject to the additional costs 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. and 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 doms what we're all talking about: creating jobs. it's 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 of electricity and one of the key factors driving up those costs is all the pollution control that we have to put in place not because of what we're generating but because of 95% of our pollution is coming from other states. this rule makes sense in every dimension. and to undercut this rule is going, i think, to do great injustice to the health of the american public and the economic

potential of states throughout this country. let me say something else too. we often see this, i think, erroneously as a one-sided cost. these pollution -- these utilities are going to have to go ahead and put all these controls on. guess what? they're hiring american workers, skilled workers, to put in place products which i hope are produced in america. all that contributes to our economy. and so for many different ways i would urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. it is efficient, it's 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 that are essentially paying for the pollution of states throughout the country. if the winds were blowing the other way, i dare say many of my colleagues would be standing up and arguing exactly the opposite.

with that, mr. president, i would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: mr. president, i'm pleased to support senator paul's work to avail, take 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 2006. but it is a legitimate process, and it's of increasing importance today, and it is an opportunity for members of congress who have asserted that they believe that regulations are taking over the country and that they need to be pulled back

and constrained. 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 -- quote -- "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 2001-2006 was about 72. now during this administration the average number is not 72, it's about 130. that's an 80% increase in the number of pending regulations with costs over $100 million. so this is a tsunami of costly

regulationregulations falling or economy. the rule will increase power bills for people and businesses. there are a range of other new e.p.a. rules that will raise the price of electricity in addition to that. these increases increase the cough of doing business and it makes our businesses less competitive and results in job losses. higher energy costs, makes american businesses let competitive and let able to create jobs, more likely to invest in other countries and in this country. at an e.p.w. hearing, environment and public works

committee, last month we heard testimony that more than 180,000 jobs will be lost each year from 2012 through 2020 as a result of just four e.p.a. rules that impact the electric utility sector, just the electric utility sector. one of these four was the cross-state rule. this is a net jobs loss plan which takes into account this -- this evaluation takes into account alleged job gains from the four rules. together the four rules would result in $21 billion in annual compliance costs and raise residential energy prices by 12% in alabama. and even more in other states. 12% increase in residential energy costs is significant. these are working people.

if your bill is $150, it is now going to be $168 a month. if it is a $200 bill, that's $224 a month. that's real money. and for gaining not one thing that adds to the productivity of a business or a residence. it's a really significant cost. and don't think it doesn't fall on people. and we've gotten our mind set in washington that we can impose a rule and it has costs on businesses, but it doesn't cost us. it's like -- but in truth it's the equivalent of a fa tax. for example, if the government wanted to clean up air, they could tax the american people, use that money to go to all the

power plants, add extra costly techniques to it, and clean up the air that way. that would be a tax. we would have to defend that on the american people. we'd have to justify that this cost that we've 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 will you that mandates these -- we simply pass a law that mandates that these businesses do that and we pretend it doesn't cost. but the experts say this is a 12% increase in utility rates for these friewls in alabama alone. -- for these rules in alabama alone. that's working-class people, middle-class people, poor people is that have to have electrici electricity. an analysis of all the new e.p.a. rules impacting the electric utility sector is even more astounding.

southern company, which operates in the southeast, estimates that the capital cost of complying with the full range of proposed e.p.a. rules for coal-fired electric generation would be between $12 billion and $15 billion. the cost for alabama power, that does most 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 the power company $5 billion to $7 billion in costs. the president and the 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%, we need to ask ourselves, can we afford

this kind of increase now? new core steel pointed out in recent testimony that a one-cent-per-kilkilowatt increae to make steel would add $120 million in costs to their company. that was the testimony they gave a few weeks ago at an e.p.w. hearing. let's talk for a moment about the specific rule that senator paul's resolution would nullify. the rule mandates that 27 states reduce your sulfur dioxide emissions by 20% by 2012. how many months is it now until 2012? 20% reduction, next year. and nitrogen oxide, nox, emissions by 5 0% by 12015. we brought down nox and sox

already significantly. our air is cleaner in virtually every city in america than it was just a few weeks ago and much cleaner than 20 or 30 years ago. we can be thankful that congress mandated that and there certainly was objections raised at that time. and it did impose costs, as said, but it also has helped clean our air. that's a fact. i would just say this to you: the lower-hanging fruit has already been achieved. the plants are operating more efficiently and effectively today than ever. but a 50% reduction of nox, nitrogen oxide, by 2015? an additional 20% reduction of sulfur dioxide by next year? because utilities will be forced to either stall expensive technologies such as scrubbers or shut down their units is why

we'll have problems. this rule will be the nail in the coffin for a lot of coal-fired power plants. they will just close. it will also close coal mines where we produce american energy, not imported energy but american energy. in texas, one of the state's power producers, one company mass said the rule would result in 500 job losses due to closing of unitsality one of its coal-fired plants and the closing of three nearby coal mines. there are serious concerns about the new rule. so, over 70 parties have challenged it in federal court, including alabama's attorney general, luther strange, a fine attorney general that works hard every day for the people of alabama. his colleagues also 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. so before concluding, let me just say this: e.p.a. is using too often scare tactics that -- and statistics to push its regulatory agenda. and i think that's a dangerous thing. one reason we've seen such a surge in e.p.a. regulations is because in one year they got a 35% increase in their budget, more than virtually any other agency in washington. e.p.a. claims that this cross-state rule, for example, is necessary to prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths per year. 34,000.

e.p.a. is actually claiming that without this rule 34,000 people would die each year. bur e.p.a.'s basis for this assertion is fundamentally flared. first, e.p.a. assumes its baseline that existing rules are not in place to protect public health. that's absolutely not triewvment the bush administration issued the clean air interstate rule that requires reductions in the same emissions targeted by this rule. i'm told that sulfur dioxide emissions are already down more than 40% 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 e.p.a. would not acknowledge that when they do their analysis of the casualties that they find. and that is the first way they

overstate the benefits. second, e.p.a. assumes in its baseline that 320,000 deaths per year in the united states are attributed to particulate matter pollution from power plants. that would be more than 10% of all deaths in the united states in a year. are we to believe that 10% ever all united states deaths are attributable to pollution from power plants? we have taken extensive new mexico in the e.p.w. committee on this topic and it is clear that e.p.a. is playing fast and loose. they're manipulating data, it seems to me, pretty clearly. the e.p.a. is overstating the benefits of their rules. third, e.p.a. did not seem concerned about establishing any direct cause and effect

relationship. they just relied on statistical relationships, a simple statistical correlation alone does not support causal connection. for instance, a statistical correlation between ice cream sales and heat stroke does not mean there is a causal connection between them. on hot days more ice cream is used. more people have heat strokes on hot days. that doesn't mean there is a causcause-and-effect relationshp between the two. this administration is overregulating our economy. it is raising the price of energy. these costs and regulations are costing us jobs. they are real estate using scare tactics to -- they're using scare tactics to justify their rules with dubious statistics. i know my colleagues will say

these statistics are accurate. but, mr. president, i do not believe that these statistics that are coming out of e.p.a. -- our government environment and protection agency, the agency we depend on for honesty -- can be defended as accurate. they are example j rated. it will be shown sooner or later that that's a fact. so i know we want to have cleaner air. we're on a path to have cleaner air. we've been reducing nox and sox particulates for years. we can continue to do that. but to talk about a 50% reduction in 2014, a 20% reduction in sox by next year? these are huge changes. after the low-hanging fruit has already been achieved, i don't believe that's justified, i don't believe it should be pressed down on the brow of an

economy that's struggling mightily to get off the mat and begin to grow again. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president -- mrs. boxer: mr. president, if my colleague would withhold for 60 siegeds. mr. alexander: certainly. mrs. boxer: thank you. i would like to make a unanimous consent request that committees are allowed to meet today during today's session of the snavment they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i hope these requests will be agreed and to printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: and one more quick point before my colleague, senator sessions leaves the floor. he and i -- senator sessions, i wanted to address you for a minute. i wanted to first of all thank you very much for working with us in the e.p.w. committee and as i said to you privately, in our committee when it comes to infrastructure, we're all very closely tied and we support each

other. when it comes to the environment rkt we see things differently. but i want to say to my friend, who is very wise in many ways, that i don't know why he would question, he has a total right to question the e.p.a.'s assertion that if we pass the rand paul repeal, it would result in 34,000 premature deaths. and i just want to point out that he's not a cardiovascular specialist nor a lung specialist. neither am i. but i think it's important to rely on those who are, like 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 won't go on because i only have one minute, but i will list these. and i would hope that we would look to these groups because we're not -- i don't know of anyone in this body who is a specialist in cardiovascular or

lung conditions. and they certainly oppose -- these groups oppose the paul amendment because they think people will get ill and they will die prematurely. and i would yield 8 minutes to senator alexander. mr. sessions: mr. president, would the senator yield for 30 seconds? mr. president, senator boxer has done a great job of moving legislation in committee. -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: have i been objected to? i'd ask -- the presiding officer: the senator from alabama is recognized. mr. sessions: -- for her leadership in committee and the collegial way she's conducted that committee. i will just say, senator boxer, that the 320,000 number is not correct. e.p.a. should not be using it. we will challenge that. i intend to look at that more. and if they have -- if they're

wrong, i'll expect them to acknowledge they're wrong. and i believe they are wrong. i thank the chair and would yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: mr. president, i believe i have 8 minutes. i would ask the chair to let me know when i have a minute remaining. the presiding officer: the senator is correct. mr. alexander: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, the senator from kentucky wants to overturn a clean air rule which would limit the amount of soot and 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, and i want to give the four reasons why i'm going to vote "no" and why i believe senator pryor of arkansas and i have been a better solution, which is to put the rule into law and give the utilities enough time to comply with it. reason number one, first thing nissan did when it came to tennessee 30 years ago was go down to the air quality board and get an air quality permit so

it could operate its paint plant. our air was clean enough to allow that to happen. nissan came. so did tens of thousands of jobs. if it hadn't gotten the permit, the jobs wouldn't be there. volkswagen has come to tennessee. we want to make sure its suppliers can get an air quality permit so they don't have to go to other states. the first reason we need to stop air from blowing into tennessee from other states is auto jobs. second, the county chamber of commerce next to the great smoky mountains, next to where dolly parton grew up, they say their goal is clean air. that's because people come to see the great smoky mountains, not the phog tkpweu mountains. -- smog tkpweu mountains. these are the most republican counties in tennessee. where i come from, the next county, we haven't elected a democrat to congress since abraham lincoln was president but we like to breathe clean air. tourists do as well. tourist jobs are the second

reason i'm going to vote against the paul amendment. and for the alexandria-pryor amendment. three, the american lung association tells us that dirty air blowing into tennessee makes us unhealthier because some of us die, especially children and old folks. number four, this is no solution. it has no chance of succeeding. it won't pass the senate. the president will veto it if it does. what will it do? 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? is that we favor dirty air blowing from kentucky into tennessee or tennessee into north carolina? that we favor not doing our job and turning it back to bureaucrats, lawyers, uncertainty and delay? that's not a solution. if we want a message amendment, there may be better choices. the obama administration, particularly the e.p.a., is a happy hunting ground among reasonable regulations.

there's the boiler mack rule which must have been created on another planet. there's the cement m.a.c. rule which would increase the amount of pollution in the air. there's the ozone rule which the president himself had to withdraw. there's the coolant rule which seems to have no benefits. there's even talk of a farm dust rule, which senator johanns is talking about. so why aren't we talking about those instead of a proposal to make it easier for dirty air to blow in our state, make us unhealthier, drive away tourists and cost us auto jobs? the senator from kentucky says it will cost. it will cost. his sources say 2%. the tennessee valley authority, the largest public utility in the country, says it's $1 to $2 a month. $1 to $2 a month, that's a reasonable cost for what we're getting. closing 18 coal plants, operate 38, putting pollution control equipment on all of it. that means we're healthier, that means more jobs, that means more

tourists. the senator from kentucky says he -- dimensions are declining. that's true. in kentucky they are not declining. soot went up by 20,000 tons in kentucky according to the e.p.a. between 2009 and 2010. some of that might blow into tennessee, drive away jobs, drive away tourists, make us unhealthy. the bush administration had an identical rule to this in 2005. utilities have known since that time, for six years, it was coming. most like t.v.a. have complied with it or are beginning to comply with it. if we overturn the rule, it's no solution at all. i'm ready for congress to step up and accept its responsibility. do something. someone said to me, is that part of your new independence? no. i've had a clean air legislation in this congress every year since i've been here because i think it's our job. not the bureaucrats. jobs and health was what i was elected to work on. i'd rather not pass the buck to bureaucrats and lawyers. so i invite my colleague to join

senator pryor and me. let's put the rule into law. let's give utilities enough time to comply. they don't have to comply on january 1. they have to comply 15 months after that. and we would give them still another year. within -- we're going to have a president elected next year. whoever it is, or her, e.p.a. will write new rules for communities across the country about how much clean air they have to have. and if we make it harder for them to do their job by allowing dirty air to blow into nashville and chattanooga and memphis and knoxville from other states, when volkswagen suppliers come to the state office to get their clean air permit, they won't get it and those jobs will go somewhere else. there's a lot i admire about our neighbors in kentucky, including their two distinguished united states senators. but i don't want their dirty air blowing into tennessee. and i know north carolina doesn't want our dirty air blowing into north carolina

because they have been suing us for 12 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 into tennessee, admire the mountains and leave their money. i want the volkswagen suppliers be able to locate plants in tennessee and i want tennesseeans to be able to grow up healthy and not worry about dirty air blowing from other parts of the country. the alexander-pryor amount would limit dirty air, make us healthier, create jobs. let's do our jobs. i ask our colleagues to vote no on the paul amendment and become a sponsor of the alexander-pryor amendment to clean air up and do it in a way that helps utilities provide electricity at the lowest possible cost. i thank the president. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: mr. president? sproeup the senator from california is -- the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: i ask unanimous consent that senator menendez go for 5 minutes and senator blunt

for 10 minutes following that. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. mr. menendez: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey is recognized. mr. menendez: i thank my distinguished colleague from california for yielding time and her advocacy here. i rise today in support of the cross-state air pollution rule that protects downwind eastern states like new jersey from upwind power pollution plants dirty air. and i rise in defense of the lives and breathable air of the people of new jersey, all nine million-plus. last week i asked the governor of my state to join this fight. all after, this rule is supported by the new jersey chamber of commerce and our largest utility because it's good for business. they know it's only fair to level the playing field for new jersey businesses since we have already substantially cleaned up

our electric generation facilities. we're meeting our obligations. and 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. and the economic benefits of this rule are estimated to reach anywhere from $120 billion to $280 billion each year. so, mr. president, we're all focused like a laser beam on the economy, as we should be. on jobs and its creation, as we should be.

on reducing deficits and looking at the bottom line. but this rule doesn't create or force a choice between trying to grow this economy, creating jobs, and reducing deficits. it's a good rule for the economy. it's a good rule for the health and well-being of americans, particularly those downwind from the toxic emissions and power plants. let's be clear, mr. president. corporate coal power plants 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.

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. i mean, there are few times in this chamber when you can actually cast a vote that will save a life, and this is one of those moments. vote for over $120 billion in economic benefits. voting for cleaner air. let us bequeath to future generations of americans not air in our nation that is dirty, but air that is cleaner. and a vote for keeping our children healthy. you know, the number of asthma attacks that grow in this country is enormous. certainly in my home state respiratory ailments are on the rise. the last they think that we need

to do is to nullify the ability to create cleaner air at the end of the day. it's a time for us to all see this as an opportunity to ultimately make a difference. and it's a time for us all to see this disapproval resolution for what it is, a pass for polluting industries that make us sick without paying for the cost it creates. to me, that's the ultimate corporate welfare. let us join together in defeating this shortsighted resolution. with that, mr. president, i yield back the balance of my time to the senator from california. and i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from missouri is recognized. mr. blunt: mr. president, thank you for the recognition. i rise in support of this resolution, the resolution that would allow the congress to say this is a rule we shouldn't go

forward with. the e.p.a. cross-border air pollution resolution of disapproval, or the so-called transport rule, which places mandates on power plants in certain states in order to impose, to spare neighboring stpraeuts emissions -- states from emissions. the compliance date for this rule is around the corner. it's january 1, 2012, an extraordinary time to comply with a rule the e.p.a. just issued in july. six tphopbgts look at so much of the -- months to look at so much of the electric transmission of the country doesn't make sense to me and i think won't 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 e.p.a. rules, including decisions about compliance time. by mandating this arbitrary deadline, the e.p.a. will only

put more pressure on job creators who are struggling to make ends meet as it is. another upcoming mandate from the e.p.a. is the so-called utility matter rule for a rule that deals with mercury. the combination of this rule and the utility mack rule can be devastating for our economy. the combined effect will cost americans $ 1.4 million jobs by 2020, including to an economic consulting study, 1.4 million jobs. and wha where will those jobs g? they'll go to some country that cares a whole lot less what comes out of the smokestack than we do and problem gets worse, not better. it will cause electricity rates to skyrocket over 20% in some regions of the country. we all remember the president's comments at the san francisco "o

chronicle" in 2008 where he said under his policies electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket and so the plan appears to be working, but is that the right plan for a country with 9% unemployment? that the right plan for a country where the number-one priority should be private-sector job creation? i don't think so. congress roundly and soundly rejected the house-passed -- at least the senate rejected and this congress would reject the house-passed cap-and-trade idea that came from the administration. now the e.p.a. is trying to circumvent the will of the legislature by imposing cap-and-trade results with things like the transport rule and, mr. president, the utility mac rule. unfortunately, these burdensome regulations will have the impact the president predicted. they will raise utility bills. higher electricity rates means a

higher cost of doing business, and there's no doubt those higher costs will be passed down to families across america. there's no doubt those higher costs will cost jobs. if we stand by and allow the e.p.a. to impose these regulations, job creators, seniors, and families will be hit by a higher utility bill. 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. mr. president, in the remaining time i have, i want to talk about a champion for a better and smaller government and an opponent of all job-killing regulations and in addition to that a good friend and advisor of mine, someone that 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 that was the most he'd serve, and he really was much more than a politician. mel hancock was truly the citizen legislator, the individual who got into government only to make government better. he learned his ins and outs of the political system by developing a philosophy about taxes and government long before he came to congress and frankly long before that philosophy became the philosophy that's so prevalent today. living in rural stone county, missouri, he had a profound influence from his father, john hancock and he spoke -- john hancock did -- about the concerns after growing and intrusive federal government. the power to tax is the power to destroy, mel hancock remembered his father say. he didn't enter office until 1989. he spent 10 years in the insurance business.

he started his own business called federal protection, a security business. but in 1977, when proposition 13 passed in california, he became the person that drove that issue in our state. one year later in 1978 he and his wife around their kitchen table formed a group of people that began to fight the idea of a overregulating, overtaxing federal government. voters passed something called the hancock amendment that was one of the first state tax limitation amendments in the united states. mel hancock developed this amendment, using the formula that limits total state revenue and expenses in missouri to percentage of personal income of the residents of the state. it also required new local taxes, licenses, or fees to be approved by voters in political subdivisions. but his public service didn't stop there. he ran for congress when our

local congressman retired. he announced his canedcy. he won a crowded pry maimplet he declared his intention to serve only a brief period of time and advocated term limits. during his first three terms in the congress, he served minority. he got exactly what he wanted in the new congress, a seat on the ways anways and means committeee walked away from that two years later keeping his pledge to moians. a lifelong republican, mel built a reputation that reminded many of another missourian as his campaign theme became "give 'em mel." he rolled up his sleeves and went to work using the initiative process to protect citizens and taxpayers and always remembering where he came

from. he was most devoted to his family, his wife who he always called "the boss," and his greatest pride was his children and grandchildren. he went right to work here. "give 'em mel" became part of washington. evermel hancock could be counten to be on the side of more freedom. i didn't go to his memorial service 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 and i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: just for the record, how much time remains on the republican side? and how much on our side? the presiding officer: nine minutes and 50 second on the republican side. 18 minutes and 15 seconds on the democratic side. mrs. boxer: thank you very

much, mr. president. i will use so much time on our side until we have another speaker here -- it will probably be about five minutes -- and then i know senator lee wants to have the floor, which is fine. so we'll proceed. mr. president, this is a very important vote that's coming up. i want to put into sper techive what we're talking about. in 1997, my calculation is 14 years ago? -- several states went to the e.p.a. and said their people were suffering because certain states were producing horrible pollution, toxic, dirty pliewks an pollutit was floating right over to their states and then their states have 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 this dirty air, was then expected to clean it up. and i liken it to this: if you had toxic garbage in your house and dumped it on your neighbor's front lawn and said, you know? it's your problem, well, that's not what we believe in in america. we believe in responsibility. but the paul amendment would say, no. it would say no, we cannot ask those states tha states that arg toxic pollution and is scrogs over to other states to do anything about it. i believe it's 38 states -- 38 states would be ad voarsly impacted if the paul resolution were to pass. now, let's look at this.

i'm not just being rhetorical here. the scientists have looked at this. and they said that if the paul amendment were to pass and we repealed this cross-state air pollution rule and states could feel very fine about dumping their pollution in another state, 34,000 cases -- 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 school days. and we would lose $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014. so anyone that stand up here in this chamber and tells you that by voting for the paul resolution you are helping people, don't fall for it.

it's wrong. if anyone comes to this floor and says, oh, this is about jobs, it's wrong because if you can't breathe, you can't work, and lost days at work are an economic burden. and if we turn the clock back, all this great clean tech dmi that we have that's exported to the rest of the world -- and it's huge -- it employs more than a million people -- you 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 united states senate. and let me tell you you who backs me up on this: the american association of cardiovascular and pulmonary reharks 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 patient association -- who see peopl people gasping fo. have you ever seen a child gasping for air? it is something you don't forget. i will show you a picture of a child, a beautiful child who is forced to wear one ever these inhalers too often because they can't breathe, they can't breathe. so you'll hear lots of things -- oh, we need more time for this. how about they knew about this since 1997, the polluters? how about since 2005 when they learned that the bush

administration rule was too weak, how about that? so i see senator carper here and since we're going back and forth, this would be the time for senator lee to take -- how much time, senator lee, are you going to take? senator lee, how much time are you -- how much time will you take? five minutes for senator lee followed by eight minutes for senator carper. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. lee: mr. president? the presiding officer: the junior senator from utah is he carecognized. mr. lee: mr. president, i stand in support of this resolution. and i do so for the following reason: article 1, 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 a 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 only to those people entrusted by their citizens of their respective states for limited times to make law because they understood that those who have the power to make law have the power to infringe the individual liberties of the american people. such that whenever they exceed those powers they can be held accountable by close it they represent, on whose behalf they'll be legislating. every single time we act, we have an effect on the american people, a and we need to be held accountable at regular interva intervals. for those decisions -- every six years for senators, every two years in the case of the members of the house of representatives. owe cautionally, congress has chosen to dell indicate that power. might might say, we hereby enact the clean air act and we give power to the environmental protection agency to implement rules and enforce those rules to make sure that we have clean air. to the extent that we do that,

particularly where e.p.a. or some other agency acts in a way that might have a very significant impact on our economy, i think we're selling the american people short of their birthright, which is the guarantee that laws won't be made on their behalf, particularly significant laws, particular the one we're addressing today, without those who voted for them being held accountable. there are great people at e.p.a., just as there are great people at every branch and office of our federal government. but it's only those people here in congress who are constitutionally authorized to make generally applicable federal law, and it's only these people who stand at regular intervals for election, accounteddable to their people. this is what the congressional review act z. this is why -- congressional review act does. this is why this approach here, this resolution today under the congressional review act, is so important. i've heard some of my colleagues suggest that this somehow represents an attempt to circumvent the normal legislative process. what i'm saying is this is the

normal legislative process. when we're looking at a rule that by the e.p.a.'s own estimates could cost as many as 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 for this. 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 debating it and discussing it and passing it into law. that's what we're doing here. i'm supporting this resolution because i support the legislative process envisioned and mandated by the u.s. constitution. and i urge each of my colleagues to do the same. thank you, mr. president. a senator: mr. president? mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from -- the senior senator from delaware is recognized. mr. carper: thank you, mr. president. i'm compelled to rise in opposition today to this

resolution which would block the e.p.a.'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'd 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 legislation, bipartisan legislation, that would improve our clean air laws and make them stronger. 89 senators approved the clean air act amendments of 1990. a republican president, george herbert walker bush, signed them into law. and we're all the better for it. i believe that we can protect our environment and grow our economy at the same time. it doesn't have to be one or the other. and the clean air act, clean air act amendments of 1990 are great examples of just that. for every dollar we spend installing new pollution controls and cleaning up our air, we've seen $30 return in reduced health care costs, better workplace productivity and saved lives. in other words, for four decad

decades, fewer people have gotten sick and missed work because of the clean air act. just last year, it's estimated that 160,000 people's lives were saved from the clean air act protections that are in place today. and here's some more good news. our economy didn't take a slide because of these protections either. quite the opposite. since president -- 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%. 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's made great strides in cleaning up its own air pollution, investing millions in clean air technolo 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's caused mainly by sources in ohio or indiana or other states in the midwest. in fact, 90% of delaware's air pollution comes from beyond our borders. as governor of delaware, i could have shut down our entire state economy, we would still have been out of attainment in public health standards. this is pollution we need our neighbors to clean up. and, 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 smaller 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, then states like mine won't 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 e.p.a. and the courts agree. this is why the e.p.a. 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 we do -- that all of us do our fair share to reduce air pollution. that's the way it ought to be. like my employees, i try to live my life by the golden rule -- treat other people the way we want to be treated. that's why this rule is fair. my state, my neighboring states shouldn't have to suffer because other states aren't required to clean up their act at our expense. and furthermore, if you ignore the fairness and equity arguments for the cross-state air pollution rule, it's 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 this year. that's roughly the number of people that 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 just ask you this: what if the prevailing winds of this country were blowing instead of from west to east, from east to west? and what if those of us who live along the east coast from virginia to maine chose to operate older, dirtier coal-fired electric plants? and what if we built tall smokestacks that sent the harmful emissions coming from our plants upward into the air to be carried away to regions only to end up in the air breathed by people living in the areas to our west? and what if by operating these older, dirtier power plants, we lowered the cost of electricity along the east coast while raising it for our neighbors in the midwest? and what if by operating these

older, dirtier power plants, 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'll tell you what they'd say. they'd say it's unfair. they'd say we shouldn't be able to get away with polluting their communities year after year. they'd say somebody should right this wrong. they'd say, haven't you heard about the golden rule, that admonishes to treat all others the way we want to be treated? they'd 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 put tens of thousands of people to works including hundreds in my home state of delaware. utilities have the money. we have a trained work force that wants to do the work. we just need to act. a clean environment and a strong economy can go hand in hand. we don't have to choose between one or the other. join me in defeating this proposal.

give your neighbors that live in my part of the country, our part of the country, give their kids, their grandparents air to breathe that won't send them home from school or work or into an emergency room or hospital or into, worse yet, take their lives. please join me. vote no against this motion to proceed to the resolution. thank you, mr. president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from texas is recognized. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i'd yield myself five minutes. the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mr. cornyn: mr. president, texas has some of the most highly industrialized and depopulated areas in the nation and air quality in these and other areas of the state is improving and we actually are very -- making very positive steps towards reduction of pollutants. for example, ozone has been reduced by 27% across our state since 2000 and nitrogen oxide, a precursor to ozone formation, has been reduced by 58% over roughly the same period of time. but i rise in support of this

resolution because it represents regulatory overreach and abuse of power. this rule when it takes effect january the 1st will significantly harm grid reliability, destroy jobs and raise electricity prices for consumers living on a fixed income and for businesses who are depending -- who we're depending upon to create jobs here in our country. the reason why this rule is an abuse of power as regards to the state of texas, we were not included in the rule when the environmental protection agency first proposed it. but then 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 e.p.a. has reversed course and included us in this rule without the opportunity to challenge the claim, without fair notice. the e.p.a. has mandated that texas slash so2 emissions by half and greatly reduce nox

emissions in less than five months, an unprecedented timetable to comply w. the standard time frame 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 and 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 that as a result of the unprecedented heat wave and the historic drought that texas has been experience, that 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 conditioner to deal with triple-digit temperatures. this would have meant rolling blackouts, businesses forced to cut back, hardship, even a

threat to the safety of many of our senior citizens. i visited some of those seniors in houston, texas, recently and, of course, many of them are on a fixed income. they can't afford to pay more for their electricity bills. they're struggling to pay their bills already 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 winter or their air conditioning during the summer. the e.p.a. has said, well, we got it approximately right but we're going to make some revisions. but revisions are not enough. the e.p.a. recently corrected errors to modeling assumptions and corresponding emissions budgets for several of the states urn the rule but other mistakes remain. haste makes waste. we know that's true. why can't the e.p.a. do it the right way, give us some time, snow and opportunity to be heard so we can get this done right?

the e.p.a. overestimates base generation capacity for our grid by 20,000 megawatts. this estimate includes 100% of texas' installed wind generation, as though wind power is always available. our electric grid derates wind generation to 8.7% 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 power plants that are currently retired and mothballed. so the e.p.a. got it wrong but their answer 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," and they said, tough luck. tough luck. our only recourse, mr. preside mr. president, is to support a resolution like this one because

we cannot get fundamental fairness from this agency of the federal government when it comes to my state. and so i support the rule and i would yield the floor and reserve the balance of our time. mrs. boxer: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from california is recognized. mrs. boxer: how much time remains on each side, please? the presiding officer: the republicans have 1 1/2 minutes. the democratic sides has 16 minutes and 10 seconds. mrs. boxer: thank you. mr. president, we've heard the same theme over and over again from our republican friends, which is we need time, give us time. the e.p.a. is rushing this. well, how much time do you need to fix a problem that's forcing children to put on these inhalers? how much time do you need to enforce a rule that is keeping

people from dying prematurely, that is keeping them from getting heart attacks? here's the deal. in 1997, several states went to the e.p.a. and said, something is really wrong here. we got kids like this gasping for air and the air pollution isn't coming from our state. it's coming from the states to the west of us. now, i want to make it clear. my state, california, doesn't have, you know, a dog in this fight. we're not involved in this. we don't pollute. we don't have a lot of coal-powered plants. and we're in the far west. and, frankly, having that ocean along our state helps us. we've got plenty of air pollution but we're not getting it from another state to our

west. so i stand here speaking frankly as a united states senator who cares about clean air, who cares about the public health and also sees this as a moral issue. and 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 pick it up 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, so we have the technology, we have the ability to create jobs, cleaning

up the environment. we have the ability to make sure fewer children like this beautiful child don't have to resort to inhalers if we just clean up our power plants. and we have the ability to do that. the other time is crying. we need time. i think 14 years is enough time. in 2005, the court 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 just last month in terms of where people stand. i'll get them. 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 just pollute at will and as senator carper said build these big 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.

and i -- i want to put the picture back of that child again. how is it upon 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 like this? mr. derouchie scrrks would the senator from california yield for a question? mrs. boxer: i would be happy to. mr. derouchie: i would like to thank the senator for her leadership on this issue. 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'm not mistaken, his resolution would eliminate this standard. there would be none. mr. durbin: if i'm not mistaken as well, he has made an argument on the floor this has no direct impact on asthma and pulmonary

disease, even producing a chart to that effect. i would like 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 number-one reason is that children show up in emergency rooms? i said fall off their bicycles? you know, trauma? no. asthma. asthma. and she said senator, i will have young people come into this emergency room who are fighting for breath, saying i'm asthmatic and i can't breathe, and i watch as they die in front of me. that is the reality of asthma. this just isn't an inconvenience. it is life-threatening. and i'd like 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? a senator: mr. president, i will be happy to answer that question.

mr. durbin: i direct the question to the senator from california. i don't know what the time frame is, but i will be happy to have your 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, and therefore we need to look to those people. you're 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've heard it in front of our committee. the fact is this rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 lost work and school days. this is factual. so i just want to say that hearing people come on this floor, questioning whether there

is an unbelievable -- questioning whether there is an association between soot in the air and asthma attacks, questioning that frankly goes -- it's to me unimaginable. and we have all of the health organizations who disagree with senator paul on that. mr. durbin: i'd like to ask another question through the chair of the senator from california. so two weeks ago, i went to the university of illinois children's hospital, and 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, and yet those who were trying to repeal this air safety rule, senator paul and those who support him, are arguing these doctors and patients are just wrong. so i'd like to ask you, because you were just alludeing 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 even 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 and i will put in the record with unanimous consent a letter signed by many groups which i would like to quote from. so, mr. president, can i have unanimous consent to place in the record this important letter from these health groups that senator durbin is asking about? the presiding officer: without objection, so ordered. mrs. boxer: okay. here's what they say in plain and simple language. blocking the cross-air pollution rule -- cross-state air pollution rule would force people living in downwind states to continue to suffer from high

levels of unhealthy pollution from out of state power plants, and they say that 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's not like you have a bad day and you're 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 that there will be 400,000 cases of aggravateed asthma attacks if we go back on this rule. aggravation of other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. and i would say, senator durbin, they add premature death. and here they are saying 34,000

cases of premature death. so you -- and i will give you just a few of the names of the people who signed this, and i'm so glad you came down here. you have been such a great leader on these issues, and i want to say for the record led me and so many others, a majority of the house, in saying no more smoking in airplanes. and boy, we remember how it was in those days, and i know your personal experience with lung -- lack of lung function in your own dad. so your coming over here today is very, very appreciated. so i will give you the names of some of these organizations and then give you the time to ask another question. mr. durbin: if the senator would yield for one more question? mrs. boxer: i will. mr. durbin: it seems the argument from senator paul comes along two lines. first of all, air pollution doesn't hurt and don't be worried if there is more of it. 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's making, if you can get past the first, is this is how we're going to create jobs in america. the house of representatives now 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 that 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 would like 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

nebulizeers for those suffering from asthma, people who make oxygen tanks. i'm 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. so i'd like to ask the senator from california, talk to me about job creation and pollution. mrs. boxer: absolutely. well, first of all, i want you to know that since the clean air act passed and there were all these predictions of horrible recession, there has been a huge number of jobs created. and it's all documented on one of these charts here which i will get to, and maybe i don't have it, but i can tell you our g.d.p. rose more than any other industrialized nation in the world as we cleaned up the air. now, you and i were on a trip to china. we did not see the sun for days and days and days. interestingly -- and this is -- 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 and push our agenda, which is trade with china and all the other things we want and making sure their currency is -- is floating, this is -- this is what we learned. chinese leaders are largely insulated from beijing's famously foul air. in the great hall there, they have got 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. so 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, and to get specifically to your point, to talk about the

economy, because i think that's critical, senator paul's resolution is bad for this economy, it's bad for jobs, it's bad for our families. that's why it's opposed by every health professional. and let me say this. we're talking about 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if this -- if this resolution passes. we're talking about 34,000 cases of premature death. and i want to make a point here. if you're the head of household and you die prematurely because of filthy, polluted, poison air that's floating in from another state, you can't work and your family's in deep, deep trouble. so i will tell you this. the annual benefits by 2014, annual of this rule are estimated to be $280 billion a year. so anyone stands up here and says we're fighting for jobs,

we're fighting for the people, we're fighting for the economy by rolling back clean air rules, don't believe it for a minute. and 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 preventative 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's time is five seconds. mrs. boxer: i hope we will resoundingly vote down the paul resolution. pyrite the senator's time is expired. who yields time? mr. paul: i rise, mr. president. the presiding officer: the junior senator from kentucky is recognized. mr. paul: i rise in support of clean air, clean water, electricity and jobs. interestingly, the other