tv U.S. Senate CSPAN June 20, 2012 9:00am-12:00pm EDT
9:00 am
beings. and, therefore, sovereignty, national sovereignty, dissolves. so you have a nation which exceptionalism is based on the universal ideas. [inaudible] >> thank you. who would like to take that? [laughter] >> i would be happy to say, but let me just rephrase it if i may very quickly. you are saying that because the united states has an exceptionalism view of itself, that means that it is, that it perceives itself as able to travel the sovereignty of other nations? is that what you mean? [inaudible] >> let me -- we need to address the issue. let me phrase it this way. if the panelists could address
9:01 am
issues relating to the clash of sovereignty with universalism, idealism, and we can also talk about the concept of unilateralism versus multilateralism. >> if i could save reporter, i don't see in terms of, i don't see it in terms of a violation of the syrian sovereignty in terms of universal values. i'll just a very quickly the way that i phrase it, my argument is in terms of u.s. interest, especially regarding iran and the iranian nuclear program. so that's how i see it. >> yeah, i think he had a right to be identified major section of american values and national interest. we can't fix everything everywhere, but this is a clear case where it meets both criteria. [inaudible] >> the moral judgment and -- based on the expected outcomes of those actions, not our
9:02 am
motivation, and i worry in this case that our actions are necessary going to advance our cause the way we would like them to. and that's where my note of caution comes in. >> yes. other questions? i'd like to start in the back and work our way forward so that people who haven't had the opportunity before can ask questions. >> thank you. my name is jenny come from the center of global development. my colleagues and i have been working on a new idea, a new tool, a diplomatic tool, if you will for addressing the situation is very called preemptive contract sanctions. the basic idea is that the u.s. and uk could declare that as of a particular day all new contract signed with the. >> host: regime would be deemed illegitimate. it would not be forcible in the uk and u.s. courts. this could be done
9:03 am
multilaterally with other governments and it would be more effective that way. this could have a drug impact on companies in russia and china doing business with the regime. by just typing this quiz on them a century and making it known that the contracts might not be enforceable as the successor government chooses to repudiate them. they could protect the successor government from the assad regime. so i wonder, i think that is a diplomatic tool that could be considered. we discussed minot having more diplomatic tools. i wonder if you have any thoughts on this, on of the diplomatic tools and other ways we could address the russia issue diplomatically? >> i would just give a very quick answer and also there's the question of diplomacy before directed towards senator mccain. i think skepticism was called for, i mean, if we look at what the regime is doing, you know, i wrote a book basically about the use of force and coercion. that's a middle eastern politics
9:04 am
works. we are talking of this in terms of ethnic cleansing that i really think we're past the point of diplomacy and i really think we are past the point of contact. maybe i misunderstand i just don't see how that's going to happen though. >> the syrian, and syria national council on resettablresettabl e answer state contract with russia, the weapons are being sold from russia to the assad regime to kill them. so that's not stopping russia from sending more weapons. >> you know, i think these things are worth trying. i don't think that they are necessarily independent of military action. i think you do all of those things simultaneously if we felt like a. the one thing i want to point out that i think is interesting directly related, not directly related but when you look at the jihadi discourse about three, it's interesting to note that russia and china has become sort of the big lug abuse in the way the united states was in a singular way in the past.
9:05 am
and we've seen this over time were china increasingly is seen by jihadi or decisions as a major problem. china imports just as much saudi oil as we do. this been an argument for al qaeda and al qaeda looks at the situation and i think a juicy, this doesn't mean that they will change the focus but do think that you see the popular recently towards russia and china reflected, you know, across the arab world because of their support for the assad regime is sharp and in some of these really ugly jihad movements. which athletes that are not representative of either of the opposition, syria or the wider middle east. but it's interesting that those two countries are backing the syrian regime are going to face some consequences from this sort of ugly nonstate actors. >> i'm actually going to use moderate prerogative and jump in on this question as well. military academies teach the so-called dying paradigm, that
9:06 am
every strategy just as idiomatic military and economic component. we also have a problem within the region that the longer, some of these conflicts drive on, the are some that seek to profit from the. we saw for example, with saddam hussein were no policy makers expect to spot the 1991 uprising. eventually various companies, beat in france france, be in russia, be it in china perhaps, decided they're going to try to break the international isolation by trying to win contracts up to and including the last days of saddam hussein. i do think that contracting sanctions action have, can provide some positive pressure to unilaterally by as the stranglehold that moscow has on the u.n. security council by means of its beta. at the same time it is not adopted, but it is also adopted
9:07 am
by declarations in london and in washington as the policy of the british government and the american government, they can perhaps have some weight in courts and discussions at various, as the various governments and companies try to pick up the pieces, should the assad regime fall. but with that, let me -- >> i think this kind of movement are important, and i wish they had been sort of undertaken months ago. right now, you know, it's okay. i mean, let's have them, but not as replacement for intervention. but i also want to pick up your and use my prerogative as a panelist to actually respond to the argument on jihadism and jihadi elements. it's not that i'm disagreeing
9:08 am
with you are going to sing at all, brian, this is not become a very public situation and jihadists are not a troubled doctor. in fact, they are. that is exactly why we should consider the intervention even more strongly because the reality is without the possibility of influence through intervention, you are giving them more leeway on the ground than nation. the problem is something that says, jihadi's are not dependent actors at the stage, especially in syria and the middle east. the assad regime was one of the main sponsor of the jihadi movements, and we've seen what this movement did not only in iraq but also in lebanon. so they have until recently been sort of very much demonstrating in sort of plan, -- [inaudible] and do their bidding. i really doubt very much that is
9:09 am
a creation. but why they have created them. this is something that a couple days ago, in fact, there was an interview on syrian tv with a jihadists that was actually imprisoned, we were told, and that before he carried out a suicide attack. but what was the target of a suicide attack? was it an alawite neighborhood? was a church? it was not. it was a mosque. it is a mosque that was the center of the process moment in the neighborhood, and this was one of the places because a mosque was at the center of the security complex of the assad regime. and yet these people, the locals of their go in daily protests and weekly protests in the mosque, and challenge basically.
9:10 am
and that jihadists was thing i want to go and blow myself up at that mosque. i think i'm you know, these are very strange happenings really. they go out and kill the people there supporting, so i think the idea to create problems for the process for protestant leaders and sunni leaders in their own community, when you look at the partition plan i laid out, they're not only interest in greeting their own area, but they're interested in making sure that the other areas are stabilize. they're not under one government, but they have a series of challenges that they have to surmount. the inability to create a political leadership, on the other hand they aren't going to give them the jihadi problems as well. so a lot matters -- [inaudible] they are in encouraging them and
9:11 am
losing them. because they're not going to great office only for assad. they will create trouble for the government that is going to emerge. so that is something i think we need to take, you know, considerable part on. one last thing is that this is why a point about boats on the ground in turkey, to train the fsa and help the fsa. we have thousands of people who can be recruited and trained in turkey, in jordan, and really be transformed into a security force or police force that can later on move into these areas and make sure that they are tackling these can challenges where they have been trained to do so more than the local fighters. so in cooperation, they can go ahead and make sure that this kind of challenges are under control. >> brian? >> i agree. if we were going to do, if we're
9:12 am
going to train folks, i think the description that david gave of how to do it i think makes a lot of sense. and i think in my mind there is a strong argument for that kind of course of action than there is for trying to carve out a safe zone in syria using international airpower them because i don't think that that nation can be sustained. i think mission, it will become a mission to remove the assad regime. if that's what we want to be we should just say so and get on with it. i don't, i'm skeptical that will work and that will produce a good outcome, but i think clarity actually was an issue important to in terms of -- i agree with you that i think the presence of jihadi groups in syria benefits the assad regime. but i don't think that necessarily means that those jihadi groups are a product of the assad regime or working for the assad regime. i do think it's possible that time the assad regime will manipulate those elements to try
9:13 am
to create trouble for the opposition, and i sort of thing the assad regime is using its propaganda the existence of the small groups to try to discredit the entire opposition and that's something we should all push back is because it simply isn't true. but i do think that we shouldn't also overstate the connection between the assad regime and jihadi organization. though elements of the regime certainly tolerated and enabled jihadi groups on the way to iraq, and with documentary evidence of that. you know, very clear documentary evidence of that. those groups, there's no love lost there, and the assad regime, i would argue, you know, as much as they were jihadi's traveling via syria into iraq, and we have those records can we also have very good testimony from captioned shiite militants also declassified, that iraqi shia fighters were traveling to tehran, being flaunted.
9:14 am
flaunted-- being trained. they look out for number one. and so this is not, this is not the regime, you know, embedded with the jihadi by any means. what they would you i think is try to cause trouble for the opposition. but i think at the end of the day, in my mind, in my judgment, there is an independent jihadi movement, certainly the wider jihadi community regionally please that it is an independent group. they are supporting the crew. if you like it is one of their own. frankly, i don't, i'm not in a great position to make that judgment independently but i do think that regional network of jihadi's is likely in a better position and they have made that judgment, and i think though the existence of the chandigarh i think helps assad politically, and perhaps operational, i think it helps assad keep control of the alawite dominant military because it scares those folks.
9:15 am
it has to be a dominant group. it still scares those folks but it allows assad to say, you'd effect on the and those of the people you have to deal with. even if they're not everywhere. that's what's dangerous about them. >> let's take a few more questions from the floor. i also want to extend an offer to the members of the syrian delegation who are here to ask questions. if any of you would like to, just make yourself known, i know where you are sitting. are there other questions towards the back? yes, sir with the glasses. >> hi. -jake. -- i am jake. with the exception of esther fishman who used the word skeptical, i was wondering, mr. fishman, if you could delineate your plans what you see happening in syria and have separate yourself from everyone else?
9:16 am
>> thanks. well, i mean, you got me. touché. i think that there is a program as some of the questions indicated of stepped-up sanctions. i think that, i think that we need to work, reach out to as many factions as possible, both lebanon and iraq, to limit the spread of what's going on there. i think we need to establish programs now, and plans now, to try to secure as many of the series dangerous weapons as possible. and i think in those cases that can evolve by the programs. i can direct direct strikes against those particular sites. none of those are perfect answers. i think that we should explore, as lisa, a really dedicated program to try to understand the
9:17 am
syrian opposition, such that we can make good decisions if we do want to support some of them in a program like david was talking about. i suspect lee is right that we do have that kind can we have developed a kind of knowledge today. and i don't want to make the argument that that's not, that there isn't a place or we want to do that. but what i really am very wary of is this notion of safe zones and trying to carve out direct action against the syrian regime because i think that is the regime that is reacting from a position of fear, internationally, and a position, in a position where they can lash out and really unpredictable ways. i think we need to think about that. the other thing about is we really need to consider, as lisa, the interest with iran. this is a huge opportunity. if we can pull this off it is
9:18 am
the biggest blow against iran. if they lose assad they will push back in iraq and a big way. go pushback in afghanistan and a big way and if anything in my mind the loss of three well entrenched a rainy regime's desire for a nuclear weapon. some might argue they can't, they couldn't desire it more. that's possible. but if you think that all of that is a repercussion year and we should consider it. >> i'm just going to repeat the question because, so the microphones will pick it up. the question was what about slaughter, how does one do with the concept -- and humanitarian crisis? that's directed to the whole panel, not necessarily just brian. spent i will take a present because i've been talking a lot. we have an obvious responsibility to do what we can
9:19 am
to stop the slaughter. not just in syria but in other places. look, we're talking about this particular incidence of a humanitarian crisis because there is a nexus with our strategic interests in the united states. we have seen terrible slaughter in somalia. we have seen in sudan. we are not having this conversation about this situation. and those peoples lies --.net so we're having this conversation because the strategic dynamic. the issue is not that, the issue is not that i think we shouldn't do things about the slaughter. the issue is i think if military action in this context is likely to be very violent, there's likely to be a lot of collateral damage. against society. we can strike these places, but most of the killing is being done by men with ak-47s, and those are really hard people to follow. it's really hard to stop a
9:20 am
slaughter in a small village with an airplane with the killing is being done with knives, power tools and ak-47s. >> i believe that it's the responsibility to protect with the coins for humanitarians more than interest reasons. and i think that the fact that we have not had a discussion when the sudan or somalia reflects negatively on us, not necessarily on whether we shouldn't be having this conversation. i think we should have had this conversation. there are a lot of legitimate reasons on humanitarian level, why they should be, or something series done about the slaughter that is taking place in sudan and somalia. and so the issue is for me, intervention is definitely a complex one. and i really believe that we
9:21 am
have reached a stage in our conference as equal, we really need to begin to say something should not happen, ever. slaughtering like children being killed, that should not happen. on the other hand, when you're talking about dynamism and intervention and the military aspects of collateral damage from we are all aware of that. and you know, for months in syria we have not even wanted foreign intervention. we did not even ask for it until the slaughter became too much. and until we realize assad is not going to go away, and you know, and, through peaceful means. [inaudible] it's at that moment we realized there was no with a solution without some kind of a military intervention. now, no one is asking people to take away soldiers and ak-47s
9:22 am
basically, you know, in residential neighborhoods. by arming rebels they can take about themselves, that the art, a few days ago i put on my blog a youtube video of the house or his, or the canons, the into 60 i think, that is positioned around homs and they were pounding homs. it was intentionally away from residential neighborhoods because it did not want to be attacked actually by the other fighters. it is this kind of weapons that should be targeted. the tank convoys moving on the highway between different cities that can be targeted by airstrikes. so we are aware of course of collateral damage, and are places where airstrikes can be carried out with minimal collateral damage. by arming rebels they can find and defend their own
9:23 am
communities. so it's a combination of things that need to be tried. and i really believe -- [inaudible] the discussion is not about convention are not convention. so i think, and this is i think what senator mccain pointed out when he said that we are going beyond, you know, the position has moved a little forward. [inaudible] you need to realize time is not on our side. we are really clearly running out of time. partitioning is taking place and for this reason we should be speeding up. i want to briefly acknowledge the fact that we do have a couple of people, yes, that actually would help shed light on this. they don't comment often, and i think their presence is very important because it also shows something about the syrian opposition. for all the talk about decisions and the problems that we've seen so far, actually there's a lot
9:24 am
of coordination also, quietly, that's happening between all the different factions. today, we have a group of syrian opposition members. one represents the muslim brotherhood and is also for the international conference agenda. and there is my colleague, also from the syrian national conference representing a group of independence there. we have my colleague who is from the national council, national assembly for syria, and also with the kurdish national council. and also my colleague who is right there, i think, who is from the first opposition conference. he is a well-known academic based in this field as well. so all of these different people from different backgrounds, and we have a representative to
9:25 am
represent the foundation, on the ground. so all these people really have been working together for months trying to create -- between the different opposition groups and trying to create a unity around division. so it's just as important to realize that opposition is not only division, but there is coordination taking place. and that can be leveraged as well. this can be leveraged into the things that we have said. >> thanks. we also the group of other questions. and i did see some questions from the opposition delegation, but i would offer this gentlemen up here the opportunity to be next. and we will move in the back and i saw a question in the back center, a question over to the right. >> my name is david. i work in special operations command. my question for you is, the u.s. involvement even in a limited scope mean that no-fly zone or turkish safe havens have the
9:26 am
potential to galvanize the situation, thereby increasing the likelihood that foreign fighters and other international terrorist or the stations would want to go into syria? and is that an acceptable risk to take considering that would most likely lead to the scope as mr. fishman had previously mentioned? >> david? >> i don't think we have to encourage, i don't think that we have to look at what we do as an encouraging foreign fighters but i think we'll see foreign fighters the longer this goes on. i think we have an interest in india. we are helping it to end as quickly as possible in the favor of the opposition. that will -- with the no-fly zone, i don't think a no-fly zone would jeopardize the jihadi. i think groups on the ground in syria is a product what we're talking is helping syrians to basically fight the regime. i think you'll get some foreign fighters as well but i don't
9:27 am
think this'll be, let's say, i don't think it's going to change the dynamic entirely on having the u.s. involvement, if it is on the ground. >> thank you. all the way in the back corner. please wait for the microphone and reintroduce yourself. >> hello. i am from syrian national council. i was when answering government has chemical weapons, which you mentioned, u.s. would have to interfere at one point to control that stockwell. is it cheaper and better to interfere now speak with this again, this is the kind of our so, friend, jeff mentioned, u.s. boots on ground going into 40 separate sites killing an awful lot of syrian soldiers, probably a lot of collateral damage and having suffered a lot of u.s.
9:28 am
casualties. this is going to be a big risk to do that. it will create a whole host of operational challenges for us. these things are going to have to be secured. better they are secured by syrians, and once you go in there, by the way, you are in for the long haul. you just can't go in and preserve them. you have to go in and figure out a way to destroy them as well. this is a long-term operation, the kind i think will be the least popular operation. for americans to try to sell this type of involvement, it will have high casualties potentially. nonetheless yeah, i mean wmd will be driving factor of the opposition, has been very effective in raising this issue to keep the attention of u.s. policymakers. and its working. but that's all the more reason to try to great areas that are not flawless but are under control of the well disciplined
9:29 am
syrian opposition, free syrian army fighting force that can guard these facilities. >> the gentleman in the back. please wait for the microphone. >> thank you. ima policy analyst from -- my question is essentially obviously looking back at history, i think senator mccain pointed out an example, but i see kosovo as being an example whereby u.s. intervene, and afterwards cleared out. but the experience of rwanda where the international community did not intervene -- >> leaving the last few minutes of this discussion. you can see it in its entirety. go to c-span.org. live now as the u.s. senate is about to gavel in for the day. they will start on a bill to
9:30 am
overturn the nation's restrictions for mercury and other toxics. a procedural vote on the bill is set for 11:30 a.m. centers with an continue with debate and vote on amendment to the farm bill. 43 and minutes left to be updated and voted on. now live coverage of the u.s. senate here on c-span2. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. the chaplain, dr. barry black, will lead the senate in prayer.
9:31 am
the chaplain: let us pray. eternal god, our sustainer, it is time to pray, and in the silence of this moment, examine our hearts. lord, you know our thoughts and see where we fall short of your glory. restore us to your purposes, as you lead us in the path everlasting. search the hearts of our senators. you know the struggles that confront them, the things they wrestle with, the things that irritate and gnaw at them and cause them to abandon trust in you.
9:32 am
o god, you know us better than we know ourselves. search our hearts and give us your peace. we pray in your loving name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance. 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, june 20, 2012. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1,
9:33 am
paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable kirsten e. gillibrand, a senator from the state of new york, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: daniel k. inouye, president pro tempore. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i move to proceed to -- the clerk: motion to proceed to s. 1940, a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968 and so forth and for other purposes. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion at the desk and wish to be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate 0 hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 250, s. 1940, a bill to amend the national flood insurance act of 1968 to restore the financial solvency of the flood insurance fund and for other purposes.
9:34 am
signed bid 17 senators as follows: mr. reid: madam president, i would ask the consent of the chair that the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection u. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum required under rule 22 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: followings leader remarks today, the republicans leader will who have to proceed to s.j. res. 37. following that motion, the time until 11:30 will be divided between the two leaders or their designees. the republicans will control the first 30 minutes, the majority will -- 15 minutes -- make sure that right. following that motion, that the one that senator mcconnell will make, the time until 11:30 will be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first 15 minutes and the majority controlling the 15 minutes. and i have designated that senator rockefeller will take that 15 minutes. at 11:30, the senate will proceed to vote on the motion to
9:35 am
proceed to s.j. res. 37, th andf the motion motion to proceed is not agreed to the senate will proceed to s.3240, the farm bill. and resume voting on the remaining amendments to the bill. we were able to turn in votes earlier because everyone was here. there are a lot of things going on in the capitol today but we are going to have to stick at our business at hand and make sure that we get through this long list of amendments because we're going to have to finish this and the flood control before -- flood insurance legislation, i'm sorry, before we leave here this week. that's a large assignment and we have to do that. i ask consent that with respect to any amendments votes on during tuesday' tuesday's sessie motions to reconsider were not made, that the motions to
9:36 am
reconsider be made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. leadership time is reserved. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: no. mr. mcconnell: i now move to proceed to s.j. res. 37. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 430, s.j. res. 37, joint resolution to disapprove a rule promulgated by
9:37 am
the administrator of the environmental protection agency relating to emission standards for certain steam-generating units. mr. mcconnell: madam president? the presiding officer: the republican leader. mr. mcconnell: it's become pretty clear over the past few months that president obama now views his job as the deflector in chief. no longer content to lay all the nation's problems at the feet of his predecessor, he's taken to creating controversies out of whole cloth. and whether it is a manufactured fight over student loan rates or the so-called war on women, the goal is as clear as you can imagine: get reporters to focus these things and - maybe the rest of e country will as well. get them to focus on anything other than the president's own failure to turn the economy around. and maybe he can squeak by without folks noticing it.
9:38 am
that's the plan at least, and frankly it couldn't reflect a more misguided view of the american people. now, they know who's been in charge the past three and a half years, and the fact that the president had a tough job to do doesn't mean he gets a pass on how he's handled it or on the solutions he has proposed. most americans don't like either one of the president's two signature pieces of legislation -- obamacare or the stimulus. they're not particularly thrilled about seeing america's credit rating downgraded for the first time ever. they're scared to death about its $16 trillion debt, trillion-dollar deficits and chronic joblessness. and many, including myself, are deeply concerned about this administration's thuggish attempts to shut its critics right out of the political process. these are the kinds of things americans have been telling us for three years they're worried
9:39 am
about, and we're not about to be drawn into some rabbit hole so the president doesn't have to lk about it. we're going to stay focused on all of these things, not because of some political advantage but because the american people demand it. so the president can come up with the excuse du jour but we're going to about jobs. we're going to talk about the deficits and debt. we'll talk about the constitution. and when it comes to jobs, let's be clear. this administration has been engaged in a war on the private sector, and in many cases it used federal agencies and a heavy-handed regulatory process to wage it largely out of view. we got a vivid confirmation of this when an e.p.a. official was caught comparing -- brutalize a few offenders and the rest will be scared into submission.
9:40 am
i think most americans think the government should be working for them, not against them. i think most americans think the federal government should be working to create the conditions for americans to prosper, not looking for any opportunities to undercut free enterprise. yet that's what we see, an administration that always seems to assume the worst of the private sector and whose policies are aimed at undermining it. and nowhere is it more clear than at e.p.a. that's why i support senator inhofe's ongoing efforts including a vote today to push back on the e.p.a., which has become one of the lead culprits in this administration's war on american jobs. senator inhofe is focusing on just one regulation out of the many that are crushing businesses across the country -- the so-called utility mact which would cost american companies billions in upgrades but their competitors overseas, of course,
9:41 am
it would cost them nothing. this regulation would expand the already massive powers given to e.p.a. by increasing red tape and costing the taxpayer over $10 billion each year. in my state, kentucky, alone it threatens the jobs of over 1,400 people working in aluminum smelter plants as well as approximately 18,000 coalminers, not to mention those engaged in industries that support these jobs. kentucky power, operator of the only coal-burning power plant in my state, recently conceded defeat in this fight. after the e.p.a. demanded upgrades to its plant at a cost of nearly $1 billion, raising the typical residential customer's monthly electric bill by a whopping 30%. at that time that price it's no wonder the plant found the new regulations completely unworkable. the e.p.a. may have won this battle, but the real losers are more than 170,000 homes and
9:42 am
businesses spread out among 20 eastern kentucky counties that depend on the kentucky power plant for their energy. the proponents of the utility mact say it's needed to improve air quality. what they can't tell you is what these benefits would be. or the effect of leaving the plants in their current condition. look, we all support clean air, but if we waved through every regulation with regard without to its actual impact, we wouldn't be able to produce anything in the country. what we do know is a substantial amount of the electricity we produce in this country comes from coal, and this new regulation would devastate the jobs that depend on this cheap, abundant resource. this is just one battle in the administration's war on jobs, but it has a devastating consequence for real people and real families in my state and in many others.
9:43 am
the administration's nonchalant attitude about these people is appalling, but this is precisely the danger of having unelected bureaucrats in washington playing with the livelihoods of americans as if they're nothing more than just pieces on a chess board. now, the media may continue to chase whatever issue the president and his campaign decides to fabricate from day to day, but these are the facts. behind this president's devastating economic policy. and that's why it's a story the president would rather the media ignored. well, republicans aren't going to ignore it. we're going to keep talking about the president's policies, and so i commend senator inhofe for keeping us focused on this particular policy that's devastating to so many americans. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the time until 11:30 a.m. will be equally divided and controlled by the two leaders or her designees, with the republicans controlling the first is a minutes and the
9:44 am
majority controlling the second 15 minutes. mr. inhofe: madam president? in our first -- the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: -- we're going to yield to the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, for ten minutes and then to senator manchin for five minutes. in the second round, we're going to be having senators barrasso, bozeman, risch, blunt, kyl, and toomey. thank you. ms. murkowski: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alaska. ms. murkowski: madam president, i this that i most americans would agree that it's important that we strike a proper balance between abundant and affordable energy and responsible standards of environmental performance. but too often in recent years the energy-environmental balance has been lost. restoring a sense of equilibrium
9:45 am
is important for both the health of the american people and our nation's economy. and although we see the need for this balance just every day in alaska, restoring it has become what i sympathy a national challenge, and that's why i support senator inhofe's resolution to disapprove themarkry air toxic standards. congress has tasked the e.p.a. with implementing laws to protect public health. that statutory obligation absolutely requires respect. but although the executive branch gets to make reasonable policy calls in performing that duty its regulatory duty is bounded by law. today's e.p.a. too often seems to impose requirements that go beyond what is authorized or needed. and this overreaching stifles the energy and natural resource production the nation needs to restore prosperity and technological leadership. and here's the sad thing: the resulting rules do not credibly
9:46 am
improve public health. e.p.a. is now proceeding with an unprecedented litany of new rules whose benefits are murky at best but whose costs are very, very real and detrimental to human welfare. the nation can and must strike a better balance, even in today's divided times a broad consensus remains. achieving affordable and abundant energy coupled with strong environmental standards, i think is the right combination. most would also agree that energy and environment-related public policy decisions should be based on the facts and informed by rigorous scientific discourse. applying this consensus shows that really the devil is in the details here. so let's look closely at the mats rule. if this rule is allowed to stand it will put electric reliability at unacceptable risk and raise electricity costs with very little, if any, appreciable benefit to human health. the north american electric
9:47 am
reliability corporation, or nerk, the independent federally certified electric reliability organization, recently reported that environmental regulations are shown to be the number one risk to reliability over the next five years. that's the statement from nerc. the members of the group of engineers who keep the lights on and administer electricity markets, they tell me they're worried today not only about the reliability of electric service but about its affordability. i'd like to speak to the affordability side in a minute here. reasonable regulation clearly appropriate and e.p.a. has the discretion, indeed the obligation, i think, to adopt balanced rules. but unfortunately, e.p.a.'s approach has been aimed more at its statutory obligations. through mats and through other rules, e.p.a. wants to influence how investments in energy production are made, and so it's
9:48 am
imposed a series of very stringent obligation that is perhaps are not even achievable. for example, the institute of clean air companies, which is an association representing emissions control technology vendors -- these are the guys who sell all the stuff -- has asked e.p.a. to reconsider mats, and they've said that our member companies cannot ensure that the new final source mercury standard can be achieved in practice. these are those that would make a profit off of selling these, and they're saying they don't think that it can be achieved. even though i believe the united mine workers of america who say their comments and like-minded ones to e.p.a. on the proposed mats rule were ignored, it doesn't have to be this way. e.p.a. received thousands of pages of very detailed, very thoughtful proposals for improving mats. about 150 electric generators filed their comments. edison electric institute is just one example, filed more than 75 pages of very precise
9:49 am
observations for improvements in mats, and they suggested many, very, very specific changes. the states were active too. 27 states seeking significant changes in the proposal. there were almost 20 petitions for reconsideration pending at e.p.a., and they're pending now. 30 petitions have been filed for judicial review. 24 states, madam president, have asked the courts to force e.p.a. to do better with mats. now, i always say we need to give credit where credit is due. on the treatment of condensible particulate matter -- not many of us are focused on condensible particulate matter, but e.p.a. made good changes with regard to that between the proposed and final mats rule. this reduced dramatically the need for construction of expensive pollution control devices known as bag houses. by itself, by itself this one change to the proposed rule reduced the overall cost of compliance by billions of
9:50 am
dollars and it relieves somewhat the challenges of maintaining electric reliability while achieving compliance with the rule. adopting more reasonable approach in this one area did not sacrifice any appreciable benefit. so more must be done. congress must tell e.p.a. to revisit other suggestions for similar improvements. and why the need to keep forcing the improvements? well, a vast majority of the benefits that the e.p.a. claims from mats are the results of its counting coincidental reductions of particulate matter below standards that e.p.a. has determined are sufficient to protect public health. emissions of mercury by american power plants have declined over the past 20 years without the mats rule. e.p.a. itself estimates the annual benefits of mercury reductions attributable to the rule at only 500,000 to six million, but annual costs, annual costs at about $10 billion. finally, madam president,
9:51 am
e.p.a.'s actions are driving up the cost of electricity too. p.j.m., which is the independent regional transmission organization that's responsible for coordinating the movement of wholesale electricity in all or in part of 13 states as well as here in the nation's capital, they reported two-year capacity price increases of 390%, most of which had attributed to the cost of environmental compliance. with a nearly 1,200% spike in northern ohio. p.j.m. also plans for about $2 billion in additional transmission investment to maintain reliability in the face of e.p.a. rules. clearly these are significant costs that will be passed on to our consumers. madam president, i think mats is a major rule that needs a major reset by congress. e.p.a. could then device a new
9:52 am
rule truly aimed at protecting public health and carrying out the law rather than trying to push a particular fuel -- coal -- out of the market. with that, madam president, i thank the senator from oklahoma for his leadership on this issue, and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i thank the senator from alaska for her very kind remarks and would recognize now for five minutes the senator from texas, senator cornyn. mr. cornyn: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from texas. mr. cornyn: madam president, i come to the floor to join my colleague from alaska and oklahoma and others to express my disapproval, and i intend to vote in favor of the resolution of disapproval of the environmental protection agency's mercury and air toxic standards rule known as utility mact. now, of course the debate sometimes when you talk about pollution, when you talk about the by-products of coal-fired power plants are cast in
9:53 am
apocalyptic terms that have no real bearing on reality or in terms of the science or in terms of the economic impact of the rule or the health benefits supposedly to be derived. and i want to talk about that just briefly. while this rule claims to be about public safety, it is a job-killing, ideologically driven attempt top cripple the coal industry in the united states. , an industry that employs an awful lot of people, feeds a lot of families. and this administration, unfortunately, is using the peep peep -- the e.p.a. to destroy a major source of reliable, affordable electricity we sorely need. the president talks about an all the above energy policy, but yet his administration through this regulation that we seek to disapprove today is going to effectively take one of those most abundant, low-cost sources of energy off the table for the
9:54 am
american people. of course congress would never pass such a law in our own right, so the administration is using a ruling from an unelected group of bureaucrats who aren't subject to political accountability. this is another example of executive overreach, and it's bad news for consumers and job creators alike. power companies have confirmed that utility mact standards for new power sources are so stringent that no new coal-fired power plant will be built in the united states. no new coal-fired power plant will be built in the united states. no matter how modern and how clean the technology will allow that power plant to operate. and so the consequence will be that utility mact will damage grid reliability, it will destroy jobs and it will raise electricity prices. not a small matter when many of
9:55 am
our seniors are on fixed incomes and are going to suffer as a result of this rule that really does not do what its advocates touted for. the costs of utility mact will exceed the benefits by roughly 1,600 to 1. some claim that doesn't matter, that benefits are benefits, no matter what the cost; no matter how many jobs it kills, no matter how much it raises the price of electricity on seniors in my state who are living in very hot summers. and if we have another year like we had last year -- and i hope we don't -- where we had 100-degree temperatures more than 70 days, and i think it was even more than that, which threatened the capacity of the power grid to even produce the electricity so people could run their air conditioners, the detriment to our seniors in terms of public health and in
9:56 am
terms of cost being on fixed income are quite evident. according to e.p.a., more than 99% of the health benefit from utility mact will not even come from mercury reductions but rather from reductions in particulate matter that are already regulated at safe levels under the clean air act. either the e.p.a. will be double counting existing benefits or else it will be setting new levels for other by-products that are not justified by public health concerns. in short, the benefits of this regulation are dubious, but the costs are real. and they're already harming the united states economy with the existing power plants being shut down and others being scrapped. the united states currently has more than 1,400 coal-fired electricity-generating units operating more than 600 plants. together these power plants generate almost half of the electricity produced in our country. again, we're not talking about
9:57 am
taking wind energy off the table. we're not talking about other ways to generate electricity. but this is one of the cheapest, most abundant sources of energy in our country, and we're simply killing it. so sponsors of utility mact repeatedly tout its health benefits, but those are overstated. however, they understate the impact this will have on jobs. it will kill jobs. people will lose their jobs in a tough economy. so i would urge my colleagues to pull back the curtain on the e.p.a. and see utility mact for what it is. an economic disaster shrauded in false -- shrouded in false claims about public health. americans deserve smart regulation and based on logic and sound science. utility mact is the exact opposite and deserves to be rejected. madam president, i yield the
9:58 am
floor. mr. rockefeller: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. mr. rockefeller: madam president, in the shadow of one seemingly narrow senate vote -- that being the inhofe resolution of disapproval of the environmental protection agency's rule on mercury and air toxics -- i rise to talk about west virginia, about our people, our way of life, our health, our state's economic opportunity and about our future. coal has played an enormous part in our past and can play an enormous part in our future but will only happen if we face reality. this is critical in a very contentious time in the mountain
9:59 am
state. the dialogue on coal, its impacts and federal government's role has reached a stunningly fevered pitch. carefully orchestrated messages that strike fear into the hearts of west virginians and feed uncertainty about coal's future are the subject of millions of dollars of paid television ads, billboards, break room bulletin boards, public meetings, letters and lobbying campaigns. a daily onslaught declares that coal is under siege from harmful outside sources and that the future of the state is bleak unless we somehow turn back the clock, ignore the present and block the future. west virginians understandably worry a way of life and the dignity of the job is at stake. change and uncertainty in the coal industry is unsettling and
10:00 am
nothing new, but it is unsettling. but my fear is that concerns are also being fueled by the narrow view of others with divergent views and motivations, one that denies the inevitability of change in the energy industry and unfairly -- and i feel it strongly -- leaves coal miners in the dust. the reality is that those who run the coal industry today would rather tac false enemies -- would rather attack false enemies than solve problems that would help them and the people they employ and the states they work in. instead of facing the challenges and making tough decisions, like men of a different era back in the 1970's -- a fellow named bobby brown -- and he just got together with the united mine workers on his own. they were having a lot of temporary restraining orders and
10:01 am
strikes at that time. and they sat down and because he was not a timid brown, bobby brown -- he was the head after condition, bus he was a very forceful leader -- but he was a very forceful leader -- they gave us something that gave us peace in the coalfields, which is something, for a long time. it was a courageous act by a courageous, nontimid man. scare tactics are a cynical waste of time and money and, worst of all, coal miners buy in to all they hear. they're stuck where they are, happily funded but without a place to look forward to. but sadly these days coal operators have closed themselves off from any other opposing voices and almost none have the courage to speak out for the change, any kind of change, even
10:02 am
though it's been staring them in the face for decades. they've known about it. they have ignored it. this reminds me of the auto industry, which also resisted change for decades. coal operates should learn from the mistakes -- coal operators should learn from the mistakes and the recent success of the automobile industry. i passionately believe that coal miners deserve better than they're getting from coal operators and west virginians deserve better also. so let's start with the truth. coal today faces real challenges, even threats, and we all know what they are. first, our coal reserves are finite, and many coal-fired plants are aging. the cheap, easy coal seams are diminishing rapidly and production is falling, especially in the central are apa la chan basin in -- apa lay
10:03 am
cline -- apa lay chin basin. the average age of our nation's 100-plus coal-fired plants is 42.5 years old with hundreds of plants even older. these plants run less often, are less economic and obviously less efficient. second, natural gas use is on the rise. companies are switching to natural gas because of lower prices, cheaper construction costs, lower emissions and vast, steady supplies. even traditional coal companies like consolidation and are increasingly investing in natural gas as opposed to coal. third, the shift to a lower carbon economy is not going away. and it is a disservice, a terrible disservice to coal
10:04 am
miners and their families, to pretend that it is, to tell them that it is, that everything can be as it was. it can't be. that's over. coal companies deny that we need to do anything to address climate change, despite the established scientific consensus and mounting national desire, including in west virginia, for a cleaner, healthier environment. despite the barrage of ads, the e.p.a. alone is not going to make or break coal. coal operators would love to this i that that's the case because it a great target, and it is much easier to criticize than to do something. there are many forces exerting pressure, and that agency is just one of them. two years ago, madam president, i offered a timeout on e.p.a. carbon rules, a two-year suspension that could have broken the logjam in congress and given us the opportunity to
10:05 am
address carbon issues aggressively and legislatively. but instead of supporting this approach, coal operators went for broke. they saw a fatter opportunity. when they demanded a complete repeal of all e.p.a. authority to address carbon emissions forever, they demanded all or nothing, they turned aside a compromise and in the end they got nothing. well, last year they ran exactly the same play, demanding all or nothing on the cross-state air pollution rule denying even a hint of legitimacy for the views of the other side and they lost again badly. so here we are with another all-or-nothing resolution, which is absolutely destined to fail,
10:06 am
and we are arguing and months, weeks, years go by. this foolish action wastes time and money that could have been invested in the future of coal and instead with each bad vote that they get, the coal operators, they give away more of their leverage and they lock in their failure. this time the issue is whether to block on e.p.a. rule, as has been said here, the mercury and air toxics standards, that require coal-fired plants to reduce mercury and other air toxic pollution. i oppose this resolution because i care so much about west virginia. without good health, demeaned here in this debate so far, it is difficult to hold down a job or live the american dream. chronic illness is debilitating.
10:07 am
i've made a career in the national of health care -- in the senate of health care, and it impacts families' income, their prosperity and ultimately families' happiness. the annual health benefits of the rule are enormous. e.p.a. has relied on thousands of studies -- thousands, thousands of studies that establish the serious and long-term impact of these pollutants on premature deaths, heart attacks, hospitalizations, pregnant women, babies, and children. do west virginian west west virt these kinds of things? i think they do. it significantly reduces the largest remaining human-caused emission of mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin with fetal
10:08 am
impacts. maybe some can shrug off the advice of the american academy of pediatrics and many, many other professional medical and scientific groups, but i do not -- i do not. the rule has been in the works, madam president, through a public process for many years. some businesses, including some utilities in west virginia, have already invested in technology and are ready to comply. others have not prepared because they have chosen to focus on profits rather than upgrading or investing in these smaller, older, and less efficient coal-fired plants that were paid for decades ago and that they'll tell you would be retired anyway. that's right. every single plant slated for closure in the west virginia was already on the chopping block from their own corporate board's
10:09 am
decision. it's important i think to be truthful with minors. a sort of forgotten art and travesty. you have to be truthful to minors that coal plants will close because of decisions made by corporate boards long ago, not just because of e.p.a. regulations but because the plants are no longer economical as utilities build low-emission, natural gas plants. natural gas has its challenges, too, with questions about water contamination and shortages and other environmental concerns. but while coal executives pine for the past, the natural gas folks look to the future. investing in technologies to reduce their environmental footprint and they're working with others on ways to support the safe development of gas, and we're all going to be watching that very closely, are we not? i.t. not too late, you know, f r
10:10 am
the coal destroy step up and lead -- to the coal industry to step up and lead by creating a sustainable future. it has not been too late for a long time. discard the scare tactics, stop denying science, listen to what markets are saying about greenhouse gases and other environmental concerns, to what west virginians are saying about their water and their air and their health and the cost of caring for seniors and for children, who are the most susceptible to pollution. stop and listen to west virginians, minors' families included, who see the bitterness of the fight we're having now and that has been going on forever, the bitterness of the fight has taken on more importance than any potential solutions. the point is to put up block after block, which loses time
10:11 am
after time, but at least you're fighting and you have something to scream about, but you're making no progress at all. to same minors that i talk about care deeply about their children's health. they care about them. they're family people. i know them. i went there in 1964. i've lived among minors for two years and have known them ever since. they care about the same things that other west virginians do and other people all over the country. they care about the streams and the mountains of west virginia, and they know down deep that we can't keep to the same path. they're not allowed to say so, but they know that. mine,their families and their neighbors are why, madam president, i came to west virginia, why i went to west virginia. and they're why i made our state my home. i've been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with
10:12 am
coalminers and we've done a lot of good things together over the years. for more than 36 years, madam president, i've worked to protect the health and safety of coalminers, everything from the historic coal act back in 1982 to mine safety laws, pension, black lung benefits, always with miners' best interests in mind. and despite what critics contend, i am standing with coalminers today by voting against this resolution. i don't support this resolution of disapproval because it does nothing to look to the future of coal. it moves us backward, not forward. unless this industry aggressively leans into the future, coalminers will be the big losers. beyond the frenzy over this one e.p.a. rule, we need to focus squarely on the real task of finding a long-term future for something called clean coal.
10:13 am
that is possible. we have demonstrated that. that's been done in various places in the country right now. and this call has to address the legitimate environmentald and e- environmental and health concerns. global warming counts. yes, i am frustrated with much of the top levels of the coal industry, at least in my state of west virginia, but most of the corporate headquarters are elsewhere, but i'm not giving up for a strong, clean coal future. i am not giving up. to get there we'll need a bold partner, innovation, and major public and private investments. in the meantime, we should not forget that coal-fired plants provide good jobs for thousands of west virginians. it remains the underpinning of many of our small communities, and i will always be focused foremost on their future. so in concluding, in instead of
10:14 am
finger-pointing, we should commit ourselves to a smart action plan that will help with job transition opportunities, sparking new manufacturing and exploring the next generation of technology. not just depend upon coal but depend on a the love things. none of this is impossible. solving big challenges is what we do in west virginia. i would much rather embrace the future boldly. i yield the floor. mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: before senator rockefeller leaves, i want to take 30 seconds to say something, and that is, i believe when the next historian writes a book about leadership, courage, and integrity in the united states senate, that is this speech today will be featured in that book, and i'm so proud to know you, senator. and i'm concluding that 30 seconds and would like to ask,
10:15 am
how much time remains between the two sides? the presiding officer: the majority controls 36 minutes, the republicans control 39 minutes. who have will the senator yield? mrs. boxer: i didn't, the time is yours. mr. inhofe: we've approximately 34 minutes apiece. we'll go back and forth. mrs. boxer: well, senator, they just said it's 39 for you and 36 for me. so go right ahead. mr. inhofe: like that. i thank the senator from south dakota for -- i yield to the senator from south dakota for seven minutes. the presiding officer: the senator from south dakota. mr. thune: i thank the senator from oklahoma for his leadership on this issue, for yielding the time and appreciate everything that he has done to bring senate joint resolution 37 to the floor of the united states senate. madam president, as the father of two daughters, i want a cleaner, safer and healthier environment for their generation
10:16 am
and for future generations. and thanks to the commonsense policies that balance economic growth with a cleaner environment, our country has made significant progress towards improving the quality of our air and water. we've made progress under republican presidents and we've made progress under democrat presidents. we've made progress during democrat control of the senate and republican control of the senate. but, madam president, what the obama administration is doing with this regulation and with many of the other of their policies that pertain to energy is pursuing an identify i don'ty driven agenda in which the costs far outweigh the benefits. he promised his energy plan would necessarily make electricity costs skyrocket and his policies are clearly delivering on that promise. a prime example: that flawed agenda is utility mact, which is the most expensive regulation in e.p.a.'s history with an estimated cost of $10 billion. these are costs that we passed
10:17 am
on to families and small businesses across the country at a time when we're experiencing the worst economic recovery in over 60 years. madam president, we all know the statistics. unemployment has been at 8% now for 40 consecutive months. we will unemployment is above 14%. there are 23 million americans who are not working today, madam president. 5.4 million americans have remained out of work for over a year. despite these facts, president obama continues to push regulations like utility mact that are going to make energy more expensive and at the same time destroy good-paying jobs. according to the national economic research associates, utility mact will cost between $-- 180,000 and 215,000 jobs by 2015. the united states stands to lose approximately 1.65 million jobs by the year 2020. madam president, we simply cannot afford these politically
10:18 am
driven regulations at a time when 23 million americans remain unemployed or underemployed. madam president, low-income and middle-class families are the ones hit hardest by the administration's actions. families that earn less than $50,000 already spend 21% of their income on energy costs compared to 9% for those making more than $50,000. thanks to the e.p.a.'s regulatory actions, those costs are going to go up an average of 6.5% and as much as 19% in some areas. middle-class incomes have already fallen by over $4,300 these past three years and now president obama wants to further burden them with higher energy costs. these higher energy costs are not some far-off projection. in many cases these costs are already being realized. as an example, p.j.m., that kaordz tphaeuts the movement of -- coordinates the movement of 13 states and the district of
10:19 am
columbia. p.j.m. reported two-year capacity price increases of 390%. p.g.m. is reporting a nearly tenfold increase in wholesale energy costs in northern ohio. according to one of their spokes persons, capacity prices were higher than last year's because of retirements of existing coal-fired generation, resulting largely from environmental regulations which go into effect in the year 2015. the result could cause electricity bills across the p.g.m. region to increase up to $130 and potentially much higher in places like northern ohio. in addition to electricity rates, e.p.a.'s agenda will drive up the cost of food, transportation, fuels and manufactured goods as those costs get passed on across all the sectors of the economy. the end result, madam president, is more pain for the middle class, slower economic growth and fewer jobs. madam president, the president of the united states, president
10:20 am
obama, likes to talk a lot about fairness, and i would ask my colleagues is it fair that unaccountable e.p.a. bureaucrats are going to drive up utility bills by up to 19%? is it fair that manufacturers are going to have to pay higher energy bills rather than hire new workers? is it fair that small towns across the midwest are already being devastated by coal plant closings on account of regulations from the obama administration? and is it fair that thousands of workers are going to be laid off, are going to lose not only their paychecks but their employer-provided health care coverage as well? most south dakotaans and millions of hardworking people across the country i believe these regulations are inherently unfair. them penalize hardworking middle-class americans. in the case of utility mact, consumers are going to pay a heavy price for president obama's political agenda to restrict access to the abundant and affordable sources of domestic energy that we possess
10:21 am
in this country. madam president, most americans believe regulations should work for consumers and not against consumers. unfortunately, e.p.a. bureaucrats drafted utility mact regulation in an inefficient and unworkable manner. utility mact's new source standards are so strict they cannot possible be met. according to the institute of clean air companies, the proenvironmental trade association comprising nearly 100 suppliers of air pollution equipment, utility mact makes it -- and i quote -- "nearly impossible to construct a new coal-fired units because financing of such units requires guarantees from equipment suppliers that all emissions limits can be met." end quote. madam president, there has got to be a better approach. senate joint resolution 37 which would force a rewrite of utility mact is the only solution to address the rules problems. it is time to rewrite utility
10:22 am
mact in a manner that better balances economic growth with environmental protection. and i would hope today, madam president, that we will have a majority of our colleagues here in the united states senate that will support s.j. res. 37. doing so will send a strong message to the obama administration that the united states senate will not stand by and watch his regulatory agenda further hurt small businesses and middle-class families making it more expensive and more difficult for businesses in this country to create jobs. that is the end result of this regulation. it is the end result of many of the energy policies and regulations that are coming out of this administration. and, madam president, that has to stop. we have got to get americans back to work. we've got to get our economy growing again. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i yield five minutes to the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: madam president? the presiding oicer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: i thank the
10:23 am
senator from california and the senator from maryland especially for his courtesy. madam president, i would agree that the e.p.a. has become a happy hunting ground for goofy regulations, but the late william f. buckley once said that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. and on this rule, this clean air rule and the earlier interstate rule, i believe e.p.a. is right. the effect of upholding it rule will be finally to recognize that -- finally to require that most coal plants everywhere in america will have to install two kinds of pollution-control equipment. scrubbers and s.c.r.'s and this will basically finish the job of capturing sulfur and nitrogen oxides, fine particles and the 187 toxic pollutants that were specifically identified by congress in the 1990 clean air amendments. the tennessee valley authority has already committed to install this equipment by 2018. but t.v.a. alone can't clean up tennessee's air because dirty
10:24 am
air blows in from other states. so let me say what upholding this rule will do for the people of tennessee. first, it will hasten the day when memphis, chattanooga and knoxville are not three of the top five worst asthma cities -- which they are today -- and nashville is not competing to be the top ten. i'd like to include in the record an article by dr. william lawson of vanderbilt university which appeared in "the tennesseean" this week who treats patients with respiratory diseases in nashville. he says pollution increases chances of being hospitalized. some of these toxic ease -- emissions cause cancer and internear with children's development. number two, this rule means visitors will soon not even think of calling the great smoky mountains the great smoggy mountains because it's one of
10:25 am
the most polluted national parks in america. we want those nine million visitors to keep coming every year with their dollars and their jobs, instead of seeing 24 miles on a bad air day from clingman's dome, our highest peak, this rule should mean we'll gradually move towards seeing 100 miles from clingman's dome as the air cleans up and we look through the natural blue haze. third this rule should mean fewer advisory health warnings in our streams that say don't eat the fish because of mercury contamination. half of the mercury in the united states comes from coal plants and as much as 70% of the mercury pollution in our local environment, like streams and rivers, can come from nearby coal plants. fourth, we have seen that nissan, had it been unable to get an air quality permit in nashville in 1980 would have gone to georgia. and in senator corker had not
10:26 am
had chattanooga improve the air quality, the volkswagen site there would be a vacant lot today. we know every tennessee metropolitan area is struggling to stay within legal clean air standards, and we don't want the memphis megasite to stay a vacant lot because dirty air blowing in from mississippi and arkansas makes the memphis air too dirty for a new industry to locate there. we know that these rules will add a few dollars to our electric bills, but in our case most of that's going to happen anyway because the tennessee valley authority has already agreed to put this pollution-control equipment on its coal-fired power plants. we know we can reduce the effect of these expenses on monthly electric bills because states may give utilities four years to comply with the rule. and the president may, under the law, give them a fifth and sixth year. senator pryor and i intend to
10:27 am
ask the president to give that fifth and sixth year to reduce costs on electric bills. we know that long term, this rule will secure a place in america's clean energy future for clean coal. for example, the largest public utility, t.v.a., the largest private utility, southern company, both putting on pollution control equipment on their coal plants, plan to make at least one-third of their electricity from coal long term. madam president, in 1990, 22 years ago, congress told the e.p.a. to do this, to make this rule when it passed the clean air act amendments. in 2008 the court told the e.p.a. to make this rule. over the years i have learned that cleaner air not only means better health but also means better jobs for tennesseeans. and i am proud to stand up on
10:28 am
behalf of the people of tennessee to uphold this clean air rule. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i ask that we recognize the senator from wyoming, senator barrasso for nine minutes. mr. barrasso: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from wyoming. mr. barrasso: madam president, i ask you give me a warning when i have one minute remaining. thank you, madam president. today i rise in support of the inhofe utility mact amendment. this amendment protects communities and jobs in the west, in the midwest and in appalachia, and specifically jobs that depend on coal. these communities depend on coal to heat and cool their homes at an affordable price, to power the factories where they work, to generate revenue that creates additional jobs. we're talking about affordable domestic coal that also pays for the mortgages on their homes, the clothes and food for their children and the medical care
10:29 am
for their grandparents. i will tell you, if the utility mact rule is allowed to proceed, it would mandate that virtually no new coal-fire power plants could be built anymore in the united states. many still in existence would have to shut down. it is painful, painful to think about all of these folks who will be out of work, their bills mounting, their families losing their homes, their future looking bleak. now, the amazing thing is that the e.p.a. does not dispute these outcomes. does not dispute what i'm saying. they know exactly what they are doing. their ideology is more important to them than the living and breathing people of our coal communities. just ask the e.p.a. region one administrator, curtis spal tkeupbg who is sreufgs -- spalding visiting with a group of students in connecticut when he went on to talk about when he
10:30 am
said gas plants are the performing standards which means if you want to build a coal plant, you have a big problem. he said this is a huge decision, he was talking about these regulations that have come out of lisa jackson, the head of the e.p.a. he went on to tell this group of students, you've got to remember if you go to west virginia, pennsylvania and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. he said and to say that we just think those communities should just go away -- that's what he said -- should just go away, he said we can't do that. but she had to do what the law and policy suggested. he said it was painful. he said it was painful every step of the way. but they did it anyway. presidenpresident obama's heavyd e.p.a. admits that these communities in west virginia, pennsylvania, many other states in the west, midwest, and appalachia he said will just go away. chilling words because the e.p.a. is supposed to be about
10:31 am
protecting people, protecting their communities, protecting their environment and protecting their health. with the utility mact rule, the e.p.a. is doing just the opposite. they are making communities go away. they are hurting communities, communities of families, children, seniors as a result of these regulations. how can one justify these actions? well, we are told that there are enormous health benefits. that's what they say, enormous health benefits, they claim, to the public by the issuance of this rule. first of all, how do you protect something if the community is gone? so obviously these folks in west virginia, pennsylvania are not the beneficiaries of e.p.a. protection. second, the medical benefits of the rule come from reductions in% particulate -- in particulate matter that are currently well within healthy thresholds set by the e.p.a.
10:32 am
i will tell you that e.p.a. is cooking the books. now, this rule does very little to protect the public health. in fact, it creates a health crisis in this country because of the additional unemployment, the unemployment that this rule is going to cause in the west, the midwest and in appalachia. to highlight the point, on monday of this week, a number of us in the senate who are physicians, doctors sent a letter to president obama. this letter lasted -- i ask this be included in the "congressional record." thank you, madam president. in this letter, we expressed our concerns about the impending health crisis -- the impending health crisis that the unemployment caused by the e.p.a.'s policiee.p.a.'s policin children, families. we are writing to express our concern that the barrage of regulations coming out of the environmental protection agency -- barrage of regulations -- designed to end coal in america
10:33 am
and in american electricity generation will have a devastate effect on the health of american families. just before you made the -- mr. president, to withdraw the e.p.a.'s plan to revise the owe mosquito standard, -- ozone standard, the question was asked, wha what are the health impactimpacts? we are asking that you question your former aide's question. we hope you will work with republicans to craft policies that actually achieve both environmental protection and economic growth. that's the key -- and economic growth, not economic destruction. proponents of your e.p.a.'s aggressive agenda, regulations that kill jobs and cause electricity rates to skyrocket, will somehow be good for the american people. we come to this issue as medical
10:34 am
doctors and would like to offer our second opinion. the e.p.a.'s regulatory regime will devastate communities that will rely on affordable energy, on children whose parents will lose their jobs, and the poor and elderly on fixed incomes that do not have the funds to pay for higher energy costs. the result for public health will be disastrous in ways not seen since the great depression. later on we talk about -- in the letter we talk about the latest research on the health impacts of unemployment. a doctor from johns hopkins who testify last year before the senate environment and public health committee explaining that unemployment is a risk factor for elevated mortality rates. children in poorer families are four times as likely to be in bad health as other families. economists have also studied this issue. "the new york times," may 13 of this year, "the human disaster
10:35 am
of unemployment." "the human disaster of unemployment." that's what this e.p.a. regulation is going to do today, cause additional human disaster for people out of work. we included for the president a copy of a report that i've written called "red tape making americans sick: a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment." "studies show e.p.a. rules cost americans their jobs and their health." this report contains the latest research from medical professionals from johns hopkins, from yale, and others that show that unemployment causes serious health impacts. madam president, unemployment has been rampant in this country under this administration and it's been due in many cases to the red tape. the e.p.a.'s utility mact rule
10:36 am
will only make things worse for hard-hit areas in the west, midwest, and appalachia. according to the bureau of labor statistics, since 2008, montana has lost 3,200 manufacturing jobs, michigan, 67,000 jobs lost, pennsylvania 80,000, west virginia, 7,000. each one of these people who lost their job will be subjected to a greater risk of cancer, heart attack, stroke, depression, higher incidence of spousal abuse, substance abuse in these families. as demonstrated by the latest research, their children will suffer, too, as medical costs pile up, as electricity bills to heat and cool their homes skyrocket and the cost of ever everyday living continues to go up. utility mact will only expose thousands more to these risks. the e.p.a. should immediately stop pushing expensive regulations that put americans out of work and into their
10:37 am
doctorsdoctors' office. instead of harming public health, this administration and this e.p.a. needs to work with republicans. work together in our efforts to implement policies that achieve true health benefits without destroying jobs. and i deed american affordable energy in the process. we need to keep american energy and make american energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, while still keeping good-paying jobs and keeping energy prices affordable. this is a recipe for a healthier economically stronger country. i urge a "yes" vote for the inhofe utility mact amendment. i thank the president and yield the floor. thank you. mrs. boxer: madam president, i would yield myself one minute of my time to put into the record a couple of things. first, an editorial written by the very type of companies my friend, senator barrasso,
10:38 am
mentioned who say they're just fine with the e.p.a.'s new regulation. half of the coal-fired utilities, the power plants have already made these adjustments. they are clean. and if it is up to senator barrasso, the other dirty plants will just keep on spewing forth the most dangerous pollution. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: the other is a new poll that was taken actually in march of this year which shows that 78% of likely voters have asked us to get out of the way and let the e.p.a. do its job in controlling industrial and power sector mercury and toxic pollution. they're no fools. i heard a second opinion. i got a third opinion. and my third opinion is that if you look at this poll, you
10:39 am
understand the american people get it. they know the technology exists, and they know that these improvements can be made. they know there are jobs created when best-available control technology is put in, and they are opposed to this kind of resolution that would roll back the clock and continue our people breathing in toxins. i now -- i won't yield because senator cardin is waiting, and i yield him six minutes. then i'll be delighted to yield to you at that time on your time. the presiding officer: the senator from maryland. mr. cardin: i thank you, madam president. i let me thank senator boxer for her leadership on this issue. let me just invite my friend from wyoming to come to glenn burnie, maryland, and see the brandon shores power plant, the 12,000 meg go watt power plant in -- megawatt power plant in maryland which is operating -- not only operating but is in
10:40 am
full compliance with maryland's healthy air law that is very similar to the proposed regulations that we're debating today. that power plant put in the investments, didn't close, made the investments so we have a clean energy source. and in the process, madam president, created 2,000 jobs in modernizing that power plant. that's why we have many companies that support the regulation, because they know it's going to mean more jobs, including series, and american boiler associations and companies like w.l. gore. first, i want to thank senator boxer for her extraordinarily leadership on these issues. i want to thank senator rockefeller for his extraordinary statement. i was on the floored and listened to him speaking on before of the people of west virginia. they're interested in a clean economy, good health, and jobs. i want to thank senator alexander for speaking up for the people of tennessee, because
10:41 am
he understands the importance of sensible air-quality standard. i want to speak on behalf of the people of maryland, on bail behalf of the families that i have the honor of representing in the united states senate. this is a week that summer camps start and some parents are going to have to make a decision when we have a day that is rated as a code orange or a code red because of air-quality issues concerning ground-level ozone as to whether they're going to send their child to camp that day. knowing full well if that child has a respiratory issue or an asthma issue as to whether that child should be outdoors during that day when we have these air-quality warnings. if the parent decides to keep the child at home, they've lost that day at camp and the cost of that day at camp. they've lost a day at work because somebody is going to have to stay with the child. if they send the child to camp and the kid had the episode, he may be one of the 12,000
10:42 am
children who will end up in our hospitals or emergency rooms as a result of dirty air that could be cleaned up by the passage of these regulations, the enact of these regulations. i know the chairman of the environment and public workers committee will tell us as to how many premature deaths, how many bronchitis -- these are toxics that are going into their air that cause cancer and neurological, developmental, and reproductive problems, primarily for children -- for children. it's particularly dangerous for them. and the source -- power plants that have not put in the investment for clean air. this is doable. it's been done in maryland and in many power plants around the nation. in fact, my state, concerned about our children, concerned about our health, passed the maryland healthy air act, and the mercury standards in that legislation is very similar to
10:43 am
what these regulations would require. maryland has reduced its mercury and its sox and nox emissions and we saw a reduction from the 2002 level, 80% in sulfur dioxide and 70% in nox. it helped our economy. but here's the challenge we have in maryland. yes, this is important. maryland's experience shows that an aggressive time line is not only achievable, but it's also desirable. power plants are capable of meeting aggressive time lines and the benefits are on parallel. air pollution control protects public health and saves -- billions of dollars associated with medical costs. the environmental protection agency is required to do a study cost-benefit. how much cost for how much benefit? every dollar of compliance cost, we save $3 to $9 as far as
10:44 am
saving costs for our economy. that's a great investment. we like those types of investments. the maryland experience also shows that we need a national standard to effectively address air pollution. maryland has done what's right, but our children are still at risk. why? because air pollution knows no state bong industry. we're downwind. we've done what's right. but our children are still at risk. that's why we need these standard. we showed that you can do in a cost-effective way creating jobs for our communities. you can have a clean environment, you can have a growing economy. in fact, you can't do it without. that's what these regulations are about. as senator alexander said, we've been waiting 20 years for these regulations. we've been waiting -- 1990 congress passed the clean air act. in 200, our courts said you can't -- in 2008, our courts
10:45 am
said you can't delay it any longer. it is our responsibility to protect the public health. it is our responsibility to do what's right. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution that would deny us the opportunity of protecting our public health. i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: madam president, i heard the senator from california talk about 78% of the people in this country want to reduce mercury. i am part of that 78%. the problem is this bill doesn't address that. by their own numbers, the e.p.a. says the cost is around $10 billion. of the that, less than $6 million would be addressing mercury. the rest of that is in particulate matter, something that is already regulated under the clean air act. i recognize the junior senator from west virginia for six minutes. mr. manchin: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from west virginia. matsch i rise to speak in favor
10:46 am
-- mr. manchin: i rise to speak in favor of the disapproval resolution to stop the e.p.a. from implementing one of the most expensive rules in recent memory. i thank my colleague, senator inhofe, for introducing this important resolution to send a message to the e.p.a. i'd like to say a few words about the little state of west virginia who does the heavy lifting that helps this entire nation. we mine the coal, we make the steel. we have done just about everything we possibly can. we have more people that probably serve percentage-wise in the military than any other state. we've given our all for this great state. and we'll continue to do the heavy lifting. but what we need to do is make sure that the e.p.a., make sure this government is working with us and not against us. the government's role is to be a partner, not an adversary, but an ally. and that's what we're asking for. we're asking for it to work with the businesses and not against them. we're asking them to understand our actions. their actions will put thousands of hardworking americans out of a job in the worst economy in generations. don't raise electricity rates on
10:47 am
consumers who can barely afford monthly bills today. it is mostly seniors and people struggling with their families trying to make a living. the economic realities is that the environment and economy have to work hand by hand. it has to be in balance. from the day i arrived in the senate, i've been determined to stop the e.p.a.'s job-killing agenda, and this resolution of disapproval takes an important step to rein in this out-of-control agency. let me explain this to you. where i come from in the state of west virginia, like most states, we do our rules and regulations through a legislative process. people have to vote. we don't give bureaucratic agencies the right to set policy. the people have given us that responsibility and that right for us as elected leaders to set the policy. and that's what we're asking here. we have this agency stepping way beyond its boundaries, farther than our founding fathers ever intended that's putting an absolute burden on the backs of every american. along with a handful of other
10:48 am
rules on the verge of being implemented are already in place, the utility mact rule would cost the u.s. economy up to $275 billion over the next 25 years. according to electric power research institute and the utility mact would cost 1.3 million jobs over the next two decades, according to the national economic research association. on the issue of utility mact, i have heard from thousands of west virginians in the past several weeks. in fact, just yesterday i had 45, 45 of my constituents from west virginia get on a bus, 756 miles, drive all day to get here to be able to speak to some of us and drive last night to go back home. that's how committed and dedicated most of them had either worked in the mines, was working in some aspect of mining. people think just mining is just coal mining and coal mining only. it's not. the energy business is basically if you work in a battery
10:49 am
factory, if you work in a machine shop, if you work in any type of ancillary jobs, the ripple effect is unbelievable to our economy. if you work in a power plant, these people are scared to death because all they hear every day is they're going to lose their jobs because the government is going to shut them down and work against them. about three-fourths of the minersed in room had already been laid off, because they're fighting for their jobs, they brought their family and children with them. they want to make sure we could put the faces and real people with what's happening with the rules we pass here. mr. president, our coal miners are the salt of the earth -- madam president. they work so hard to provide energy for our country and to provide for their families. they don't want a handout. all they want is a work permit. that's all they've asked for. now is not the time to pull the rug out from under them and make them worry about how they're going to pay their bills or food for their family. madam president, i believe this country needs to strike a balance and i've said that before. our lives are about balance. every day you get up in the morning, you look for a balance in your life. you look for a balance in how
10:50 am
government or how you run your business or how you can make a living. and that's what we need to find here in this body today. the e.p.a. has truly gone too far. we've heard so many different testimonies about that. and that is why i'll be casting my vote in favor of this resolution by senator inhofe to disapprove of the new rules. and i urge all of my colleagues to do the same. madam president, i truly believe that energy is an issue where we can bring thoughtful members together on both parties to work out solutions. let me point to an important example. in the time i have served, i have learned that many of my colleagues know of west virginia only as a coal state. they had no idea what we do and how we do it. so this past weekend i wanted to make sure that they understood not only do we do coal, we do wind, we do hydro, we do natural gas with the march sell has shale, tremendous find, biomass. we're doing everything we can. and we think every state should be held accountable and responsible to try to be envelope independent and do it -- to try to be energy
10:51 am
independent. i invited leaders of the energy committee, senators wyden and murkowski, a democrat and republican, to spend a weekend with me to tour our state and to see how west virginia's all-in policy for energy independence works. one of them will likely be the next chair of the energy and natural resources, but i can assure you that both of them will work as a team trying to find a policy that works for this country. you'll hear both of them say one size doesn't fit all. we need everything, and we have to find solutions for this. a comprehensive energy plan for this country. which brings me to our recent visit to west virginia. they saw how we are aoug the all of the -- using the all of the above approach. in the eastern part of the state they saw a wind farm. they saw a 1,600 megawatt coal-fired power plant with the most modern of technology that cleans up the air 95%. they saw it all. and when the wind isn't blowing, basically they saw there was no
10:52 am
pore power generating especially in the hot summer or cold winter. basically all we're saying is we're doing everything we possibly can. we will continue to do. in short, madam president, we saw a little bit of everything that can be done if you work together. i want to thank, and i think it should be a bipartisan effort that we find a solution. we can't continue to kaoepl -- keep fighting each other and agencies can't keep controlling what we're not legislating. if it hasn't been legislated it shouldn't be put into law until we're able to evaluate it. i appreciate us talking today. we have our differences but we can come together. i want to thank you. madam president, and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, i think that when the senator talks about balance, he ought to recognize that one half of the coal-fired utilities have already made these adjustments, and they have reported to us with very little impact on electricity rates. i would yield five minutes to senator sanders. mr. sanders: i thank the chair very much. the presiding officer: the
10:53 am
senator from vermont. mr. sanders: before i begin, madam president, i have five unanimous consent requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. i ask unanimous consent that these requests be agreed to and these requests be printed in the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sanders: let me begin by saying, madam president, i suspect that i have the strongest lifetime proworker voting record here in the united states senate. i want to create jobs, not cut jobs. and what senator boxer and senator cardin and others are talking about is creating meaningful, good-paying jobs as we retrofit coal-burning plants so they do not poison the children of vermont and other states around the country. so to senator inhofe and others, i say respectfully, stop poisoning our children. let them grow up in a healthy
10:54 am
way. madam president, the clean air act is set to cut mercury pollution by 90%, using technology that is available right now. that would be good news since the centers for disease control and prevention say mercury can cause children to have -- and i quote -- "brain damage, mental retardation, blindness, seizures and the inability to speak." end of quote. we get exposed to mercury simply by eating fish contaminated with it. and we have seen fish advisories in 48 out of the 50 states in this country. wouldn't it be nice if the men and women and the kids who go fishing could actually eat the fish they catch rather than worry about being made sick by those fish? power plants are responsible for
10:55 am
one-third of the mercury deposits in the united states, but senator inhofe's resolution would let them keep right on polluting. his resolution would also eliminate protections against cancer-causing pollutants like arsenic as well as toxic suit that causes asthma attacks. leading medical organizations, including the american academy of pediatrics, the american lung association, the american heart association, the american nurses association, have said -- and i quote -- "senator inhofe's resolution would leave millions of americans permanently at risk from toxic air pollution, from power plants that directly threaten pulmonary, cardiovascular and neurological health and development." end of quote. that's not bernie sanders. that's the american academy of
10:56 am
pediatrics, the american lung association, the american heart association, the american nurses association. madam president, we are talking about preventing thousands and thousands of premature deaths. we are talking about preventing heart attacks. and we are talking about what is a very serious problem in my state, and that is asthma. maybe senator inhofe would like to join me in the state of vermont. i go to a lot of schools, and i ask the kids very often, i ask the school nurses how many kids are suffering with asthma, and many, many hands go up. so thank you very much, we do not want to see more asthma in vermont or in other states that are downwind. you know, madam president, we hear a lot from some of our republican friends about jobs. well, the truth of the matter is, is that if we are aggressive
10:57 am
if cleaning up these coal power plants, we can create and we have already seen created many, many good, decent-paying jobs. in fact, if we invest -- if the utility industries will invest in pollution controls, we can create almost 300,000 jobs a year for the next five years. meaningful, good-paying jobs making sure that our air is cleaner and that our people do not get sick. so let's talk about job creation. job creation, cleaning up our environment. and, madam chair, this is not just theory. i'm the chairman of the create jobs subcommittee, and we heard from constellation energy which installed pollution controls at their 1,280 megawatt coal plant in maryland that cut mercury emissions by 90%. this $885 million investment created at its peak 1,385 jobs
10:58 am
on site, at the plant, for boilermakers, steam tpeurts, pipefitters, operating engineers, ironworkers, electricians, teamsters and laborers, skwrufrt the kind of -- just the kind of jobs we want to create. the american people know we have to rebuild our infrastructure. we can create jobs doing that. this is one of the areas where we can create decent-paying jobs and help keep our kids from getting sick. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. sanders: thank you very much. i would urge very strongly a "no" vote against the inhofe resolution. mr. inhofe: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i yield five minutes to senator risch. senator risch: madam president, i come to the floor this morning to urge an affirmative vote for
10:59 am
senator inhofe's resolution. mr. risch: with all due respect to my friend from vermont, this is not a job-creating bill. virtually everybody who has looked at that has said this will kill jobs. this will move jobs overseas. everyone who's looked at this has said that it will increase the cost of energy for the american taxpayer. so it does two things. it kills jobs and it increases the cost of energy. why would anyone vote for this? this is absolute foolishness. today americans are concerned about jobs. they are really concerned about jobs. everywhere i go people ask me about jobs. they ask me about the economy. and today we as senators have the opportunity to do something about that. this resolution clearly, its failure and the implementation of the rule that the e.p.a. has put in front of us is going to
11:00 am
kill jobs and it's going to increase the cost of energy in america. it is going to do precisely what so many senators come to the floor and whine about, and that is run jobs overseas. if you're a job creator, if you're someone who is thinking of investing, if you're someone who wants to move the american economy forward, you look at every single aspect of it, and when you see something like this, it isn't just this, it's this in a parade of never-ending rules and regulations that kill jobs and increase the costs for the job creators. these are things that clearly urge job creators to create the jobs in a place other than america. that's just flat wrong. but that's not what i'm here to talk about today primarily. what i'm here to talk about today is the way we're going about this. you know, the founding fathers did a really good job when they set up our government.
11:01 am
indeed, out of the thousands of governments that have been created over the years, all of which have failed -- most of which have failed, only one has had the success that our founding fathers have had. they created a government out of fear of government. they didn't create a government that says how can we do this, how can we do that. they were interested in keeping government away from them, keeping government away from their jobs, from their businesses, from their investing. that's what they want to do and it worked for about 200 years. for about 200 years, the federal government left the american people alone. they left the job creators alone. today, over the last three and a half decades or so, the federal government has stuck its nose into every single aspect of our lives, and here we go again. what we have here is the federal government using its power, using its regulatory process to get its nose into places where
11:02 am
it shouldn't be. this is the job of congress. it is not the job of the bureaucracy of passing these kind of laws. this isn't a rule or a regulation, as the founding fathers anticipated these sorts of things. the founding fathers set this up with three branches of government to fight with each other so that they would leave the american people alone, and they said the job of creating laws, the job of creating regulations, the job of creating rules was the job of the united states congress. now, somewhere along the line, we have lost our way. last year, the united states congress passed about 2,000 pages of legislation, and that included the spending bills. last year, the bureaucracy passed about 70,000 pages of rules and regulations that have the same force and effect as law. the congress has lost the ability to pass the rule -- the laws that govern conduct in the
11:03 am
united states. now, people will argue yes, but congress won't do it, congress won't act. that's precisely the point. we were elected by the american people to act or not act as is appropriate. when we don't have, when we don't do something, it is just as important as when we do something. indeed, i would argue many times more important. well, that's what it's come to today. 2,000 pages versus 70,000 pages. in idaho, we had the same problem for a lot of years. in idaho, it was the same way. the bureaucracy could pass the rules and regulations that had the force and effect of law. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. risch: thank you. but we have changed that. congress has got to take back its ability to handle the law as it's imposed and the burden it's
11:04 am
imposed on the american people. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: i want to yield four minutes to the senator from delaware who has been such a great leader on this, senator carper. mr. carper: thank you. thank you for your terrific leadership as well. i just want to say to my friend from idaho, the congress did act. harry truman used to say the only thing that's new in the world is the history we never learned or forgot. congress did act, with a republican president, a guy named george herbert walker bush who kind legislation, clean air act amendments of 1990, passed overwhelmingly in the house and senate and supported as i recall by those of us here that are on the floor today. a little history here. the 1990 clean air act says look, there is problems with toxic air emissions. we're not sure really where they are coming from, but let's spend a little bit of time and have e.p.a. figure it out. they spent about ten years trying to figure it out. in the year 2000, the last year of the clinton administration, the conclusion was reached that
11:05 am
a lot of the emissions of these toxic to air emissions, mercury and arsenic and heavy metals, acid, gases, a lot of it comes from utilities, a lot of it comes from utilities. the bush administration, brand-new in 2001 said let's go to work and figure out what to do about it. five years later, in 2005, the bush administration said here is a rule to deal with, not with the 70 toxic emissions but with one -- mercury. just one. and immediately lawsuits were filed. and of course the federal court said in 2008 what about the other 70? you didn't do anything about the other 70. mercury. and what you did with mercury was a cap and trade system which doesn't really work for mercury. so the courts remanded it back to e.p.a. and said let's try that again. senator alexander who has been working on this issue and i have worked literally for years to try to make sure that the congress provided some leadership, that we do see
11:06 am
emissions of these toxic air emissions and sulfur oxide and there has not been an application with many of our utilities to not support legislation. we finally gave it a real try, a great try in 2010. my friend, senator inhofe, was part of the effort to try to get legislation enacted. finally i think the utilities said we would rather take our chances on an election in 2010 and we'll see what the election yields and maybe have to deal with the e.p.a. well, we had an election, and now the courts say e.p.a., you have to rule on this, you have to provide some leadership or the congress won't. the e.p.a. has done that. it's not like we're jamming it down anybody's throat. i say tomorrow i offer legislation that by 2015 it's got to be a 90% reduction in mercury, by 2015. what e.p.a. has said is by 2015, there has to be a 90% reduction. plus to address another bunch of toxic emissions. but e.p.a. said states can automatically give an automatic
11:07 am
one-year extension. if utilities have problems with getting this done by 2016, they can apply for another two-year extension. this started in 1990. it's 2012. if you play out the string, it could be as late as 2018 to comply. in the meantime, delaware, maryland, new jersey, a bunch of us on the east coat, we are downwind of the states that put up this pollution in the air, we have to breathe it, we have to breathe it. look, the technology exists to fix this problem. 50% of the states, 50% of the utilities have already applied the technology. it works. it's broadly deployed. utilities, most of them, have the money to pay for this. if they don't, they have the ability to raise capital. and the workers, there are tens of thousands of workers who would like to do this work. and the idea that we have to choose between a cleaner economy and a -- a stronger economy and
11:08 am
a cleaner environment, that's a false choice. it's always been a false choice, and it's a false choice here today. i want to commend, especially before i step down, i'm a native of west virginia. my dad for a short period of time coming out of high school was a coal miner. i still have relatives back in west virginia. i care a lot about the state and the people who live there. i want to make sure that we do something, whatever is fair to them at the end. i want to say to jay rockefeller thank you for standing up for west virginia and being a hero here today. thank you very much. mr. inhofe: madam president, i would like to yield five minutes to the senator from missouri, senator blunt. the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mr. blunt: mr. president, i thank the gentleman for the time. i rise in support of this resolution. you know, we have only been able to use the congressional review act spheflly one time, and -- successfully one time and i think at some point that means we need to look at the congressional review act because
11:09 am
these regulations often don't meet the commonsense standard, and this is one of them. now, it appears to meet the standards that the president would want his regulators to meet. in fact, in january of 2008, the president while running for president said coal-fired plants would go bankrupt and electricity rates he said later in the campaign would necessarily skyrocket under his plan to tax greenhouse gas emissions and through what was then the cap-and-trade system. the house passed that system in 2009. missouri utilities all went together. the rural electric cooperatives, the for-profit utilities and municipal utilities. they paid for a study in our state, which is in the top six states of dependence on coal. that study indicated that the average utility bill would go up 82% in the first ten years and
11:10 am
double shortly after that. but you don't have to be a genius to get your utility bill out and multiply it by two. if that's your utility bill at home, it may be a utility bill you can't pay. if it's a utility bill at work, it may mean that your job is no longer there because the utility bill went up. but that house-passed bill would have had that result in our state and five states are more dependent on coal than we are for iew tilts. that the senate then rejected the cap-and-trade bill. and thank goodness they did. but when they did, the president said that there are other ways to skin the cat, his quote, and he said other ways besides just an all of the above energy policy. his administration has by passed the congress, bypassed the will
11:11 am
of the american people, and they are clearly trying to do by regulation what i believe the congress would now never do. once the american people figured out that cap and trade and policies like that would have this devastating impact on their utility bill, about 50% of all the utilities from the middle of pennsylvania to the western edge of wyoming are coal-generated utilities, once people have figured that out and the impact it had on their ability to have a job and their ability to do what they need to do at their house, they just don't want to do it. the e.p.a. with this rule has finalized a regulation that would require power companies to reduce emissions in a period that's just unrealistically short. a three-year time frame means that in many facilities, power-generating facilities, you don't reduce emissions, you close the plant. what this really stands for is an assault on coal and
11:12 am
coal-based utilities. the director of e.p.a., lisa jackson, said, the administrator said that recently current challenges to the coal industry are entirely economic. that's what she said, entirely economic. i don't know how anyone who is paying attention to the e.p.a. to regulations or to the price of coal could say that the problems are entirely economic. they're not economic at all. we have more recoverable coal than anybody in the world. we now think we have more recoverable natural gas than anybody in the world. by 2016, under the current e.p.a. rules that are out there, plus this one, our utilities in our state would go up as much as 23% for the average missourian, more than that for people in some parts of our state, a 23%
11:13 am
increase on the utility bill by 2016. the estimates are that by 2020, we will lose 76,000 jobs because of that increase in utility rates. and, madam president, wherever those jobs go, they're not going to go to california or massachusetts or somebody that has bills that are higher than ours today. they're going to go to places that care a whole lot less about what comes out of this smokestack than we do. last year, in states where coal generated at least 60% of the electricity, customers paid 30% less in energy prices than states that use less coal than that to produce their electricity, and in our state, as i have said before, 82% of our electricity comes from coal. the presiding officer: the senator's time has expired. mr. blunt: so i would just urge my colleagues to vote for this rule that would -- the issue before us that would say we
11:14 am
don't want to have this rule, we want to do the right thing, not the wrong thing. i thank the gentleman for the time. mrs. boxer: madam president, could you tell me how much time remains? the presiding officer: the republicans have three minutes 47 seconds. the majority has 12 minutes 25 seconds. mrs. boxer: i would take six minutes and retain that balance. the presiding officer: without objection. mrs. boxer: madam president, we are faced with a resolution today to essentially repeal a rule that after 20 years in the making is about to go into effect. it would stop e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, from implementing the first-ever national mercury and air toxics standards for power plants. now, a little bit later, i will talk about what mercury does to people, and let me assure you it's not good. i will also talk about the other toxics that are emitted in these
11:15 am
dirty plants. they're not good either. when i mention them, just the names will scare you because they are names like arsenic and formaldehyde, not good. and they're going into our lungs. and the mercury is getting into the fish and people are getting sick. that is why this is such a dangerous moment if we were to pass this and stop the e.p.a. from doing this. because we know for every $3 that we invest, every one dollars to three dollars, we're going to get back nine dollars in health benefits. so if you do the math and follow the math, it's clear that this is cost-effective, critically important. just ask a parent who has a child who was rushed to the emergency room with asthma, whether they want this done.
11:16 am
just ask a utility, a coal-fired utility that has made these improvements already, half of them have, and they'll tell you it hardly had any impact on electricity prices, and they're happy with it. so if this resolution were to pass and the policy behind it were to pass, it means that instead of rewarding those coal-fired utilities who are doing the right thing, we are rewarding those who haven't done the right thing and continue to spew forth these toxins. what is at stake? what is at stake? and i ask you rhetorically, i say to the people who oh may be listening to this, who do you trust more? senators, politicians, or physicians? or the nurses? i think you should trust on
11:17 am
these numbers the professionals who have looked at this. if this resolution were to pass and e.p.a. is blocked from implementing this new clean air standard, we will see up to 11,000 additional premature deaths. 4,700 heart attacks, 130,000 cases of childhood asthma, 6,300 cases of acute bronchitis among children, 5,700 emergency room visits, 540,000 days of missed work. and, again, the rule provides $3 to $9 in benefits for every $1 that is invested. now, you're going to hear other things from the opponents of the e.p.a., the environmental protection agency. but the people of america are smart. they were just asked two months ago if they want us to interfere with the environmental protection agency as they clean up the air, clean up the mercury, clean up the toxic
11:18 am
soot, and they said by 78%, stay out of it, politicians, and let the environmental protection agency do its job. we should thank the coal companies who have already cleaned up their act, not reward those who have delayed cleaning up their act. and, again, you'll hear all kinds of horror stories. just ask the utilities that have made these improvements. we have a list of them somewhere, but let me tell you that you will also hear there will be lost jobs from this rule. when we know now there will be 46,000 short-term construction jobs as these plants become clean and 8,000 long-term jobs. now, look at the utilities who oppose -- oppose -- the inhofe c.r.a. austin energy, avista corporation, calpine corporation, consolation energy, exelon, national grid, nypa, public service
11:19 am
enterprise group, and seattle city lights. some of these have coal-fired power plants. and they say what are you doing? let's keep moving toward clean energy. i asked you, do you trust politicians or do you trust those who i believe are unquestionably, unquestionably character witnesses in this debate. let's see some of them who oppose what senator inhofe is trying to do today. the catholic health association of the u.s. evangelical environmental network. franciscan action network. general baptist convention. general conference of american rabbis, national council of churches u.s.a. united church of christ, justice and witness ministries. u.s. conference of catholic bishops. okay? that's who oppose what my friends on the other side are leading us to today, a repeal
11:20 am
of clean air rules. who do you trust? the politicians or some of these groups who strongly oppose this resolution? the american academy of pediatrics, the american association of respiratory care, the american heart association, the lung association, the nurses association, the public health association, the march of dimes, the physicians for social responsibility and trust for america's health. the presiding officer: the senator has consumed six minutes. mrs. boxer: i would ask for another two minutes and then i will yield and retain the balance. here's the chart i wanted to show you on electricity prices. you've heard gloom and doom. here are the facts. there was hardly any fluctuation in utility rates when half of the coal-fired plants made these improvements. do not fall for scare tactics. because we know upgrading a utility is something that's got to be done. and it's built into the
11:21 am
long-term plans of these utilities. now, what poisonous emissions does this clean air rule address? i talked about it before, and in the balance of my time i'll go through it again. but i'm going to just name these toxins. mercury and lead. arsenic, selinium, cadmium, chromium, benzene, formaldehyde, acid gases, toxic soot pollution. all you need to do is just listen to what i said, and you know you don't want to breathe this in. and you don't want to have fish that contains too much mercury because it damages the nervous system of children and harms the brains of infants, and we know how dangerous it is for pregnant women and children to eat this type of fish. last night we had senator whitehouse here from rhode island, and he was eloquent on the point. he had a picture, it was
11:22 am
actually a norman rockwell painting, it wasn't a real painting, it was a wonderful poster, and he said here's a perfectly -- perfect american scene of a grandpa taking a grandson fishing. he says today in his state they can't really eat the fish. maybe they can once a month eat won fish -- one fish and in some of their lakes they can't even eat any. this is wrong. this is pollution blowing from other places into the northeast. let's defeat this resolution. it's bad for the people of this country. i yield the floor and retain the balance of my time. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i would reword the question, who do you trust most, elected senators or unelected bureaucrats? i yield three minutes to the senator from kentucky. the presiding officer: the senator from kentucky. mr. paul: you know, the question is is solution getting
11:23 am
better or worse? from all the hiss hysteria, woud you think pollution is getting so much worse. all measurements of pollution show we're doing a good job and b we've ever done. most of the emission, sulfur dioxide, night truss -- nitrours oxide, they're going down. do you know over half of mercury comes from natural sources? forest fires emit more mercury than power plants do. we already have eight regulations on mercury, a plethora of regulations at the state level and the question is, is mercury getting worse or is mercury getting less? well, for the last five years, the amount of mercury that's being emitted has been cut in half. if you measure mercury in the blood of women and children, it's getting less.
11:24 am
if you say what is a safe level of mercury in the blood, we're below that. if you look at populations that eat nothing but fish, the seychelle islands, they've found zero evidence mercury is hurt hadding any of them. when you look at mercury emission, they're going down. the question is, are we going to have a balance in our country? does the other side care whether you work or not? you can do everything possible to try to eliminate this last 1%, but the question, at what cost? many are estimating 50,000 people are going to lose their jobs. do you care if you have a job? yes, we want to be safe, but there has to be a balancing act. the question you have to ask, is the environment cleaner or worse off? the environment is so much cleaner than it used to be. the rules in place are somewhat balanced, and are keeping pollution under control. what we don't want to do is go
11:25 am
so far over the top that we lose jobs. this new rule is estimated to lose 50,000 jobs. i think what we need is that the american people need to have a say in this. we don't -- we don't need to give up that power to unelected bureaucrats who you can't remove from office. let's let your representatives get involved to have more of a balance in the regulations, and i suggest that we vote in favor of this amendment. thank you mr. president -- madam president. mr. inhofe: i understand our time has expired. i could would ask unanimous consent that senator kyl have two minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: madam president, actually i'll just take one minute. i know time is short. i'll put my statement in the record and wyatt this point i ask unanimous consent that the full text of my statement be inserted in the record at this
11:26 am
point. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kyl: thank you. i'll simply say adopting this resolution is very important to prevent the implementation of a regulation which i think has been very clearly been established does not meet the test that would be required for the promulgation of a public health regulation and fails any test of cost-benefit analysis. and therefore i urge my colleagues to think about the effect on the industry, on the people of america, on the economy at this time, and adopt the resolution offered by the senator from oklahoma. mr. inhofe: i understand -- one more minute -- let me clarify a couple of things. first of all, several have made comments about the clean air act. i was very supportive of the clean air act, it's done a great job and i think that should be clarified. i think the other things that certainly we've had three medical doctors testify as to the health implications on
11:27 am
this, and i would only say this, that if you were really concerned about what's happening to the -- on this thing, keep in mind what the senator from alaska, senator murkowski, said. this maximum achievable control technology is just not there. so if you vote against this amendment and they allow this rule to continue, you are effectively killing coal in america that's accountable for almost 50% of our energy. i thank the chair. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: am i correct there are four minutes remaining on my side? the presiding officer: correct. mrs. boxer: by yield one of those minutes to senator pryor. the presiding officer: the senator from arkansas. mr. pryor: i want to thank the senator from california and just
11:28 am
say right now when you open the pair, turn on the evening news you see ads for clean coal. we need clean coal. we're like the saudi arabia of coal. we have, they say, 400 years' worth of coal supply in this country. and we have the technology now to take 90% of the mercury out and a local of the particlates and we should do it. this is our chance to do it. this is a rule that's been 20 years in the making. this is not something that people dreamed up the last couple years. it's been 20 years in the making that congress has mandated that we do this. and i'd say this, in closing for my part of the closing, is that we should not have to make ourselves a false choice here. we don't have to be anti-coal and pro-health. we can be both. we can do what's good for the health of the country and good for coal and that is have clean coal, uphold this rule and vote against the inhofe resolution. thank you.
11:29 am
mrs. boxer: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from california. mrs. boxer: madam president, the senator from oklahoma asked lo do you trust more, politicians or bureaucrats. that's not what i said. i said who do you trust, politicians or groups like the american academy of pediatrics, the american heart association, lung association, the nurses, the march of dimes, etc. i believe that when it comes to trust of the public, these groups have one concern, and that concern is the health of our people. that's why we have to defeat this resolution, and allow the environmental protection agency after 20 years to finally promulgate a rule that will go after the worst toxins that are coming out of coal-fired plants. i'm going thousand a few of these. mercury. mercury is a heavy metal that can damage the nervous system of
11:30 am
children and harm the brain of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. why do we want to take a stand against the children and their brain development? it can accumulate in the food chain and we know this, what happens is people, especially pregnant women and children, can't eat the fish because of the high content of mercury. th -- then there is lead. these are the things we are talking about getting out of the air. lead can damage the nervous system of children and harm the brains of infants, causing slower mental development and lower intelligence. there is no known safe level of lead in the blood of children. this is indisputable fact. it can harm the kidneys and cause high blood pressure, damage reproduction, cause muscle and joint pain, nerve disorders. why would anyone, why would anyone stand on this floor and say it's okay to allow these toxins to be polluting our
11:31 am
environment? arsenic, a heavy metal that causes cancer, damages the nervous system, kidneys and liver. power plants account for 62% of all the arsenic pollution that we are fighting against. why would anyone who cares about the people they represent vote for this resolution and stop the e.p.a. from cleaning up our air? vote no. there is no reason to risk the health of the american people for voting for the utility c.r.a. resolution. if the resolution passes and if that resolution were to become the policy of this country, thousands, hundreds of thousands of americans every year will be harmed. this is not rhetoric. this is fact. scientists have told us this. the health groups have told us this. i urge a strong no vote and i yield the floor.
11:32 am
11:57 am
the presiding officer: any senator wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote the yeas are 46, the the nays are 53. the motion is not agreed to. under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 3240 which the clerk will report. mr. reid: madam president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: if i could have the attention of the senate. the presiding officer: the senate will come to order. mr. reid: we did very well yesterday. we have to work on this, we have flood insurance, both very important issues. this is going to be a ten-minute vote, the order that's been entered, all the remaining votes are ten minutes, we had a 15-minute vote on the first one. so i know there are a lot of things going on today. but we're going to have to work around what what is the most important part of our job, voting. so let's work, try to get out
11:58 am
of here --. the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. reid: we're going to try to finish this bill tonight. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will resume consideration of s. 3240 which the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 415, s. 3240 a bill to reauthorize agricultural programs through 2017 and for other purposes. a senator: i call up 2345. the clerk: the senator from west virginia, mr. manchin -- mr. manchin: i ask that the reading be dispensed with. the presiding officer: there will be two minutes. mr. manchin: i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan commonsense amendment that will address an urgent need, helping our children develop healthy eating habits at a very early age. i want to thank my cosponsor,
11:59 am
kelly acrot yoth from new hampshire for working with me on this amendment. it requires the department of health of human services and the department of agriculture to development, implement and promote dietary guidelines for pregnant women and children up to 2. if you're 2 years of age, we tell you how to stay healthy and what to feed your child. this fills in the gap from women when they become pregnant until 2 years of age. i urge support of this amendment. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. ms. stabenow: thank you, madam president. i yoo yield back my time. it's my understanding we can proceed with a voice vote on this amendment. the presiding officer: without objection. all time being yielded back, the question is on the amendment. all in favor say aye. all opposed say nay. the ayes appear to have it, the ayes do have it. the amendment is agreed to.
110 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN2 Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on