Providing for Congressional Disapproval Under Chapter 8 of Title United States Code, of the Rule Submitted By the Internal Revenue Service Relating to ``Gross Proceeds Reporting By Brokers That Regularly Provide Services Effectuating Digital Asset Sales''

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. A perfect segue to my remarks, if I may be recognized, Mr. President?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, it is the perfect segue to my remarks because ``downwind'' means we are the recipient of their air and their pollution, which are the small particulates. They are often the size of, literally, a quarter of the head of a pin, and the reason that they are so dangerous is that they are inhaled to the very deepest parts of our lungs, where they do the most damage.

And so I am grateful to be talking about the good neighbor rule. That is actually the purpose of my coming to the floor, to talk about the rule that applies to those powerplants and States that are supposed to be good neighbors. And, according to this rule, they would be good neighbors, but the EPA is rolling it back, withdrawing it.

And so I am grateful to be here with two champions, my great friend and neighbor the Senator from Rhode Island, Senator Whitehouse, who has made this battle a constant struggle from his seat on the floor, in meetings, in townhalls, in forums, literally, around the world; and my neighbor from Massachusetts, the author of the Green New Deal, which I was proud to join in its first day and still represents a milestone in environmental advocacy. And we are here today to advocate.

I am joyous, even though saddened by the need to be here--joyous--to be amongst this band of brothers and sisters who are going to stand strong and steadfast against the Trump administration's sellout.

You heard it from Senators Whitehouse and Markey: These rollbacks are a gift. They are literally a payback to the lobby--the anti-environment lobby, the fuel and oil and gas lobby--that has so infiltrated and permeated our government, including, now, the Environmental Protection Agency.

And so let me begin by highlighting for people who care, and that should be everyone. It really should be everyone who has children, who will inherit the mess we are creating. It should be everyone who cares about the planet and what we are leaving for others, our stewardship of the environment.

The EPA is becoming a shell. Literally 65 percent of its workforce has been fired; 65 percent are planned to go. There is no way that the EPA, as a law enforcement Agency, can function with the remaining 35 percent of its staff.

But perhaps most egregiously, the Administrator of the EPA announced, just 2 weeks ago, that he was targeting 31 climate and health protections to roll back. He called it ``the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.'' He said it was the most momentous day in the history of the EPA. In my view, it is a day that will live in environmental infamy. It marks a step back by decades.

And for people who think, well, we need some disruptors like Elon Musk, who is behind these steps to decimate the Agency, disruption can sometimes be constructive, but not when you burn down the house, burn down an Agency, burn down a framework of laws that have been carefully built and reflect not only an intellectual commitment but also a deliberately constructed way to balance the needs of environment and energy and other interests that serve the public.

This administration is destroying that balance. It is easy to destroy things. It is easy to burn down a house. It is much harder to construct it. And this administration is blatantly and malignly and cruelly destructive, firing 65 percent of a workforce that has dedicated itself to caring about the environment and acting on our statutes to protect the environment.

So let's just call it what it is. Elon Musk and Donald Trump are using Lee Zeldin--I am tempted to say he is their puppet; certainly, he is their instrument--to take a wrecking ball to environmental protections that have safeguarded Americans from toxic air and water pollution for decades.

And so, far from ensuring clean land, water, and air for all, Elon Musk and EPA are giving Donald Trump's big polluters a carte blanche to trash the planet--no exaggeration, really. I mean, come right down to it. Let's call it for what it is. The administration is running roughshod over our Federal environmental protection laws, writ large.

I am going to focus today, as I mentioned just moments ago, on one of the rules that EPA is rolling back: the Good Neighbor Plan. And it is appropriately called the Good Neighbor Plan because it is a landmark environmental protection law that literally safeguards Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, New York, and other States of New England against the pollution generated in Ohio and other Midwestern States that is brought by the prevailing winds.

The polluters didn't create those prevailing winds, but, nonetheless, the pollution is carried on them toward the east coast. The funny thing about those little pieces of soot created in fuel-burning powerplants is they have no respect for State boundaries, none.

I don't know why. You know, we have in Connecticut--as Rhode Island and Massachusetts do--strong laws that protect our air and water. And those pieces of soot, the nitrogen, the other pollutants have no respect for our boundaries.

The Clean Air Act, through its good neighbor provision, empowers the EPA to step in when States' emissions are significantly contributing to the air quality problems of another State.

In 2023, the EPA released its final Good Neighbor Plan, which would ensure 23 States meet the Clean Air Act's good neighbor requirements by reducing pollution that significantly impacts downwind States, like Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island.

Connecticut has some of the worst air quality in the country--let's be honest here--largely due to pollution traveling from powerplants in the Midwestern States. Data shows that anywhere from 90 to 95 percent of air pollution impacting Connecticut on high ozone days originates from outside our State, and it is causing serious harm to Connecticut and our residents. Last year, Connecticut exceeded the Federal health standards for ozone on 23 different days. That is almost a month out of the year.

Three of Connecticut's cities--Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport-- rank within the top 100 most challenging cities to live with asthma last year. That is according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America Annual Report. One of the top 100 most challenging cities in which to live with asthma is a pretty lamentable distinction.

These consequences are cumulative. They mean more hospital visits, more healthcare costs, more missed school and workdays, and, ultimately, more serious illnesses, more premature deaths.

They are the equivalent of imposing second-hand smoke on children or people with asthma or other kinds of respiratory problems.

Zeldin, Musk, and Trump's rollback was touted as lowering the cost of living for Americans--lowering the cost of living. It is going to do just the opposite.

Not only is protecting the environment the right thing to do for our planet; it also benefits America economically. The EPA projected: In 2026, the first year the Good Neighbor Plan was set to be implemented, Americans would see significant health benefits because of this rule, including preventing approximately 1,300 premature deaths, avoiding more than 2,300 hospital and emergency room visits, cutting asthma symptoms by 1.3 million cases, and avoiding 430,000 school absence days and 25,000 lost workdays.

One estimate found that this Good Neighbor Plan would provide over $16.2 billion in net monetary benefits when you count the hospital visits, the lost workdays, the school days, the doctors' treatments-- all that adding to $16.2 billion. That is no bargain for the United States of America. What you may say on day 1, you pay in multiples on day 5 or 10, throughout the year.

Only the Federal Government is empowered to protect the people of the United States who live downwind from these powerplants. Connecticut cannot do it, nor can Massachusetts, nor Rhode Island on their own. It is legally and physically impossible.

But protection is impossible if Musk and Trump, through Lee Zeldin, roll back this rule. And let's be, again, honest about what is happening here. This Good Neighbor Plan rollback is part of a larger pattern and practice to undermine and undercut and eventually eviscerate environmental protections. It is the reason they are firing 60 percent of the EPA's workforce. It is the reason why they are slashing and trashing other Agencies that are vital to environmental protection. It comes as Trump's EPA has moved to cancel hundreds of grants for climate projects across the country.

For every action they take to chip away at our bedrock environmental protection, the world is less healthy. The world is less healthy and our planet is more endangered.

I urge my colleagues to stand in strong opposition to the Musk-Trump- Zeldin shameless attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and on our environment.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Absolutely.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. If the Senator from Rhode Island would yield.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BLUMENTHAL. I would add a footnote to that important conversation, which is they teach economics, and they teach that those externalities are, in effect, a subsidy if they aren't charged to the consumer and made transparent. But they can also distort the market.

When those subsidies caused consumers to buy cars that are more polluting or to use fuel that is more contaminating to our environment, they also avoid the benefits, the public-interest benefits, of cleaner fuel and better cars.

Just to give you an illustration, for many years, Senator Markey and I crusaded for safer cars--cars that were better built, cars that had seatbelts, cars that had airbags. The industry resisted--almost comically now in retrospect--because once they started installing these devices, once they made cars safe, you know what they found? Consumers wanted safer cars. They also wanted cars that were more energy efficient.

Lo and behold, when they saw the benefits of these kinds of energy- saving and environmentally friendly measures, consumers voted with their feet and their wallets and their dollars.

If we did not have these kinds of hidden subsidies, consumers would vote for electric cars if there were more charging stations, if there were batteries that took them longer distances without having to recharge.

I am kind of surprised that the President of the United States isn't having a showroom on the White House lawn for all electric vehicles, not just for Elon Musk's Tesla. Why not provide that kind of boost and elevation for electric vehicles generally? And the car manufacturers would bet on cleaner cars if they were given the true cost and enabled to enjoy the true benefits of electric cars generally, not just the ones produced by a billionaire--unelected, unappointed official, unconfirmed official--acting, in effect, on behalf of Donald Trump with Lee Zeldin as his instrument to fire hard-working people at the EPA and to roll back rules that benefit consumers.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source