Disapproving a Rule Submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency Relating to the Mitigation by States of Cross-Border Air Pollution Under the Clean Air Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the proposal by Senator Paul to preempt the implementation of the cross-state air pollution rule.

We recognize throughout this country our extraordinary employment challenges--in Rhode Island particularly but in every State. These are challenging times. But our focus should not be on undermining protections for the public health, rather our focus should be on job creation, as the President has suggested through his jobs act. That is what we should be doing.

This is one of a series of proposals--and I have seen many of them as the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior--to essentially eviscerate the ability of the EPA to protect the health of the country and its people.

What has struck me during these debates is that we are, in a way, victims of our success. I am old enough to remember when the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland was on fire because there was no control, effectively, of what was being dumped into rivers and streams throughout this country, and when clean air was something that was a sought-after goal, not a reality, in so many parts of the country.

We can look at the experience of the State of California, Senator Boxer's State. In 1976, there were regular health advisories because of the poor air. But a combination of EPA regulations and California regulations has seen the average of these health alert days in which the frail and elderly couldn't go outside, young children were advised not to play outside, and it was very difficult to put up with the smog and the congestion, fall from an average of 173 days a year--half the year--in the 1970s to about 6 days per year in the late 2000s. That wasn't an accident; that was because of effective implementation of the Clean Air Act, which, as Senator Boxer pointed out, was spearheaded by President Nixon in the 1970s. This attempt by Senator Paul is one of many attempts to reverse that progress on the assumption that things will stay the same. No, they will get much worse, actually.

This rule has been carefully evaluated. It has been through several different procedures and rulemaking processes. It has been estimated effectively and carefully that between 13,000 and 34,000 lives would be saved that would otherwise be affected and shortened because of smog and soot pollution. This rule would help avoid 15,000 heart attacks, 400,000 more asthma attacks, 19,000 hospital emergency room visits, all of that tremendous health cost. And indeed the estimated yearly costs to industry of about $2 billion to $3 billion pales in comparison to the estimates of the benefits of between $120 billion to $280 billion if this rule goes into effect.

The essence of this rule effectively, though, as Senator Boxer also suggests, makes us all better neighbors. We have a 10-percent unemployment rate in Rhode Island, and we do not specialize in wine or maple syrup. We used to be a manufacturing center. Manufacturing requires electricity. We have very high electricity costs. Why? Because our State has to compensate for the pollution coming from these other States. This is a tax. The present situation, without this rule, is a tax on small business, and particularly manufacturing, in Rhode Island. We want a rule that requires the polluters to pay the full cost of their pollution, so if it is emanating from the Midwest and being transported to Rhode Island, those people creating it should be paying for it. That is the way the market should work. We are paying for it. We are effectively subsidizing lower electricity rates in parts of this country that are taking jobs from Rhode Island. It is not only unfair, it is bad policy.

In Rhode Island specifically, only 5 percent of ozone pollution is from local or instate sources--5 percent. Ninety-five percent comes from outside of our borders, particularly the Midwest. It is transported. That is at the heart of this rule--to give us a chance not only to protect ourselves and to control our own pollution but to not be subject to the additional cost as this pollution moves across the country.

We are in a situation where we are essentially being imposed upon dramatically, and this rule will try to strike the proper balance. It will try to incentivize those producers of pollution to prevent the pollution. It will let us be more competitive. It will allow us to go ahead and essentially have a much more level playing field when it comes to what we are all talking about: creating jobs.

It is awfully tough to go up to Rhode Island and look at businesses that are making progress and being told that one of the key costs is electricity and one of the key factors driving up those costs is all of the pollution control that we have to put in place, not because of what we are generating, but because 95 percent of our pollution is coming from other States.

This rule makes sense in every dimension, and I think to undercut this rule would do a great injustice to the health of the American public and the economic potential of States throughout this country.

Let me say something else too. I think we often see this erroneously as a one-sided cost: Oh, these polluters, these utilities are going to have to put all of these controls on. Well, guess what, they are hiring skilled American workers to put in place products that I hope are produced in America. All that contributes to our economy.

So for many different reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule. It is efficient. It is effective. It will actually help our economy. It will certainly help the quality of life for Americans in those States that are suffering from the pollution of other States, and that are essentially paying for the pollution of States throughout the country. If the winds were blowing another way, I daresay many of my colleagues would be standing up and arguing exactly the opposite.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source