Tuesday, January 21, 2003

Mr. President, we have before us, although not under lively debate, an amendment by the Senator from North Carolina with reference to the New Source Review air program. This is a very important program that we have debated extensively in the Environment and Public Works Committee. There have been many hearings on this issue and, frankly, the issue has been resolved. But unfortunately, it has become an example of the polarized, confrontational, contentious nature of the environmental debate. I wish it were not this way.

I believe the administration's reforms are good for the environment, good for energy security, and good for the economy. I will not go into all the details here because I know there are many other Senators wishing to speak. So I will await further discussions when they have had their say.

I think it is important--I want to lay down a marker--for my colleagues to understand that the EPA's New Source Review reforms--what we call the NSR reforms--will improve air quality and benefit the environment. EPA has already done the environmental analysis. It shows that four of the five provisions in the final rule will reduce air pollution. That is correct. I said ``will reduce air pollution.'' The other provision will have no significant effect on air quality.

NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art pollution control technology. Anybody who has been around Washington very long knows the law of unintended consequences. We do things we think are going to help, and they turn out to be a hindrance.

The New Source Review, as it has worked, has been a hindrance because companies cannot make routine improvements and upgrades to their facilities to make them operate more efficiently, take less energy, burn less fuel, emit less pollution or polluting substances, anywhere from volatile organic compounds to the other emissions from powerplants. They do that because the New Source Review says that anytime you want to do anything significant on a major plant, you have to go through the whole process. It takes a very long time, and you are required to make very significant upgrades beyond what the available dollars in the company would sustain.

The incremental continuing improvements, day by day or actually month by month or even year by year, cannot be made because of NSR. If you change it the way the EPA Administrator has proposed, NSR will no longer stand as a barrier to facilities installing state-of-the-art pollution control technology.

The NSR reforms that EPA has proposed will actually cut emissions of tens of thousands of tons per year of volatile organic compounds. NSR reforms will reduce ground level ozone and smog. The NSR reforms will also cut hazardous air pollutants and ozone-depleting substances. Our families will suffer fewer cases of premature mortality, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.

I would say further that EPA's NSR reforms are good for the Nation's energy security. Why? Simply because they will allow facilities to install modern technologies which use energy more efficiently. We all ought to be able to agree on that. Using energy efficiently conserves energy and reduces the polluting byproducts of energy production. The facilities will be able to reduce their energy consumption, reduce their dependence on foreign energy sources, and reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy supplies.

What is wrong with that? In our current troubled times, we should not stand in the way of any proposal which reduces our dependence on foreign and Middle Eastern oil. I would also say that the EPA NSR reforms are good for the economy.

Companies would now be able to make rapid changes to meet their changing business climates without getting bogged down in time-consuming Government redtape.

The reforms will continue to protect the environment while giving companies the flexibility they need to get new products to the market quickly. We have all of the elements that should go into a forward-looking environmental program. We have made great progress, but we have also developed glitches in our system, and anybody who has thought about the system knows that we need to make it more efficient. We need to rationalize it. We need to give it flexibility so environmental improvements can be made with the least hassle.

I am talking about environmental improvements. That is what this NSR proposal does. It allows not only energy conservation, improved economic performance, but environmental progress as well. What is wrong with that?

I have yet to hear what is the objection to providing better environmental performance in a way that is flexible, that encourages companies to move forward. This is such a good idea that the last administration supported it.

Yes, Mr. President, you heard me right. The last administration supported it. This was one of their proposals. The reforms EPA finalized this winter were actually proposed in 1996 during the Clinton administration by EPA Administrator Carol Browner. I thought it was a good idea then; I think it is a good idea now. The only change is there is a new administration, with a different President.

I hope this is not the reason behind some of my colleagues seeking to raise the issue and challenge it. If it was a good idea in the Clinton administration, does it become a bad idea in the Bush administration? I don't think so. I think we are on the right track with what the Clinton administration started. The NSR reforms are good for the environment, they are good for energy security, and they are good for the economy.

I urge my colleagues to reject the Edwards amendment. I look forward--if there is further debate--to responding so that we can deal with this amendment in a timely manner.