Jon Kyl

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. I oppose the Kerry amendment and hope it will be defeated and that my amendment will be adopted. Senator Kerry has appropriately characterized the amendment as being food aid to North Korea. However, it is not just about abhorring North Korea's bad behavior but also the administration's bad behavior. On four separate occasions, the State Department assured Members of this Senate that food aid would not be used as a condition to negotiations with the North Koreans; that under no circumstances would the United States provide any incentives or rewards, is the way they put it, to North Korea. In each case, we inquired, and we specifically talked about the food aid. Four times they said no, it wouldn't be done. Two weeks before the negotiations were to begin this spring, all of a sudden, $240 million in food aid was put on the table, and only because the North Koreans launched their so-called satellite long-range missile were those negotiations canceled. So a national security interest that can simply be provided by the President based on his views----

Mr. KYL. Does not solve the problem.

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment which is at the desk, No. 2354. I ask for its consideration.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. Mr. President, what I said before was, on four separate occasions over just a couple of months, the administration had assured Members of the Senate that it would not use food aid as an enticement to the North Koreans to come to the negotiating table. Here are direct quotations from the State Department, comments such as ``had no intention of rewarding them for their actions that their government has already agreed to take.'' Reaffirmed, ``There are no financial incentives for North Korea to meet the precepts or engage in talks.'' Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, ``To be clear, the Administration will not provide any financial incentives to Pyongyang. . . .'' et cetera, on the negotiations. And further that ``any engagement with North Korea will not be used as a mechanism to funnel financial or other rewards to Pyongyang.'' We also heard media reports and asked them about them. They said no: These media reports are not accurate. U.S. policy toward North Korea has not changed. We have no intention of rewarding North Korea-- And so on. And a mere 3 weeks later, we do exactly the opposite. That is why a waiver for the President to say otherwise does not do any good and why I urge support----

Mr. KYL. For my resolution which simply prevents the administration from providing food aid to North Korea.

Mr. KYL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. KYL

Mr. KYL. Madam President, S.J. Res. 37 is very important. If passed, this resolution would overturn one of the most costly and unnecessary regulations ever adopted by the EPA. Unless we in Congress act, that regulation, Utility MACT, would establish the first ever ``maximum achievable control technology''--or MACT--standards for ``hazardous air pollutant''--or HAP--emissions from powerplants. The Clean Air Act only allows the EPA to set MACT standards for HAP emissions if it can establish a hazard to public health that would make such regulatory action ``appropriate and necessary.'' In December 2000, just as a new administration was set to take office, the Clinton EPA, under great pressure from special interests, promulgated a Utility MACT rule based on public health concerns about mercury. The data simply do not support that regulation. First of all, mercury does not pose health risks via inhalation, but rather only after entering water bodies and accumulating as methylmercury in the aquatic food chain. For humans, the primary route of mercury exposure is through eating fish. Accordingly, the EPA itself has acknowledged uncertainties about the extent of public health risks that can be attributed to electric utility mercury emissions, and it admits that ``there is no quantification of how much of the methylmercury in fish consumed by the U.S. population is due to electricity emissions. We now know too that the EPA's projections for major increases in mercury emissions from powerplants at the time were grossly inaccurate. The agency estimated that emissions would increase from 46 tons in 1990 to 60 tons in 2010. But, in fact, they actually declined to just 29 tons in 2011--more than 50 percent below the projections--and all without the MACT rule. Moreover, the studies EPA relied upon about methylmercury exposure in children and women of childbearing age have also been found to have inflated health risks. More recent research undertaken by the CDC indicates that Americans are not being exposed to levels of mercury considered harmful to fetuses, children, or adults. Additionally, both the FDA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have recommended regulatory levels for mercury that are significantly less stringent than the EPA's reference dose. With respect to nonmercury hazardous air pollutants--or HAPs--the EPA does not set actual limits for those emissions. Instead, it uses limits for fine particulate matter emissions in the standard as a surrogate for a variety of HAPs under the rule. While EPA calls the benefits associated with reducing particulate matter ``co-benefits'' of establishing the Utility MACT regulation, it has also stated that such reductions are not the primary objective or justification for the rule. If that is the case, then why are more than 99 percent of the rule's claimed health benefits due to projected reductions in particulate matter? I am all for incidental health benefits--it is always nice to get more bang for the buck--but that's simply not what is going on here. Double-counting the benefits from reducing particulate matter as a Utility MACT benefit is, at best, misleading. Indeed, if 99 percent of the quantified health benefits cited in the rule are not due to reductions in HAPs, can we really call the Utility MACT rule ``appropriate and necessary?'' The EPA is trying to pull a fast one by regulating particulate matter--a non-HAP--under the guise of concern about mercury. The agency already regulates particulate matter emissions under the Clean Air Act, and it has been doing so for 15 years. If it believes there are benefits to further reducing particulate matter emissions, it already has the power to do so; adopting S.J. Res. 37 would not prevent such EPA action. Once the coincidental co-benefits from reducing particulate matter-- estimated to be $33 billion to $89 billion, or $3 to $9 in health benefits for every dollar of cost--are excluded from Utility MACT, the EPA's own cost benefit analysis demonstrates that the health benefits of the rule are far outweighed by its costs. The EPA estimates that implementing the Utility MACT rule would cost $9.6 billion in 2016, and that reductions in mercury emissions would provide just $0.5 to 6 million in health benefits in the same year. This means that, even in the best case scenario, the cost of Utility MACT will exceed its estimated benefits by a factor of 1,600 to 1. Sixteen hundred to one. The cumulative costs and consequences of this and other EPA regulations are both real and substantial. Final and pending EPA regulations will reduce the diversity of America's energy portfolio, increase energy prices, eliminate jobs, and threaten electric reliability. With regard to our energy portfolio, we are already seeing negative effects. Coal's share of electric power generation recently dropped to just 34 percent, the lowest level we have seen since the 1970s. As a result, utility companies have already announced plans to shut down more than 25,000 megawatts of electricity rather than upgrade plants with costly new emissions control technology. These changes in our energy portfolio are just the tip of the iceberg. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation--or NERC--estimates that EPA regulations will lead to an additional retirement of 36,000 to 59,000 megawatts of electricity generation. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Office of Electric Reliability has stated that EPA regulations would likely shutter 81,000 megawatts. These plant closure predictions from nonpartisan reliability organizations are 8 times higher than EPA's estimates of just 10,000 megawatts. The closures caused by EPA regulations will not just affect our energy mix--they will also affect grid reliability. NERC has said that EPA regulations pose the No. 1 threat to grid reliability. But these reliability organizations are not the only ones concerned about the EPA's effect on coal and coal power generation. Earlier this month, Moody's changed its outlook on the coal industry to ``negative,'' largely blaming the EPA for the downgrade. As Moody's put it in a statement: A regulatory environment that puts coal at a disadvantage along with low natural gas prices, have led many utilities to increase or accelerate their scheduled coal plant retirements. It continued: In addition, newly proposed carbon dioxide regulations would effectively prohibit new coal plants by requiring new projects to adopt technology that is not yet economically feasible. I have witnessed the EPA's attempts to reshape the energy industry through regulation in my home State. Arizona relies on coal-fired power for its base-load electricity. Coal mining and plant operations are an important employer and economic engine for Arizonans and, specifically, for our Indian Tribes. As just one example, take the Navajo Generating Station--or NGS--a 2,250- megawatt facility located on the Navajo Nation's reservation. The NGS was constructed as part of a negotiated settlement with environmental interests that, at the time, preferred a coal-fired powerplant to a hydropower dam project in the Grand Canyon. It provides more than 90 percent of the pumping power for the Central Arizona Project, Arizona's primary water delivery system. The plant and the coal mined to operate it play a vital role in the economies of the Navajo Nation and the Hopi Tribe, not to mention the State as a whole. A study prepared by Arizona State University's Seidman Institute concluded that the NGS and its associated mine will account for over $20 billion in gross State product--GSP--almost $680 million in adjusted State tax revenues, and more than 3,000 jobs. Yet, the station's future viability is now directly threatened by Utility MACT and other pending EPA regulations. Right now, the EPA is undertaking an NGS-specific rulemaking to determine whether additional emissions control technologies should be installed at the station for purely aesthetic visibility reasons, rather than actual health concerns. That rulemaking could require the installation of emissions controls at a cost of more than $1.1 billion. That is just one power station--just one--$1.1 billion. And we don't even know yet what the estimated cost of compliance with Utility MACT might be. Steve Etsitty, executive director of the Navajo Nation EPA, said this about EPA's regulatory approach: EPA's one size fits all' approach to rulemaking fails to acknowledge or address the specific concerns and impacts to the Navajo Nation, as well as regional impacts. Making matters worse, EPA's uncoordinated approach to rulemakings impacting the same industries creates regulatory uncertainty, increases compliance costs, and puts at substantial risk the national and regional economies, critical jobs of Navajo people, and the very viability of the Navajo government. I couldn't agree more. The consequences of a shutdown of the Navajo Generating Station would be felt throughout the State, and even by the Federal Government. However, a shutdown would most acutely impact Indian tribes, whose economies and access to affordable water are highly dependent on the NGS. Thus, the consequences of the EPA's regulatory war on coal go far beyond the coal industry itself. Real people in my State and across the country will pay the price. That is why I urge my colleagues to support the resolution before us today. I am all for clean air. I don't know a single colleague who would take the opposite view. And I can assure my friends on the other side of the aisle that we are firmly antimercury contamination as well. But that is not really the question here. It is not a matter of clean air versus dirty air, or mercury contamination versus no mercury contamination. These are false choicest. We can have clean air and a healthy economy. We can reduce mercury levels and reduce unemployment. But we have to be smart about how we regulate. Utility MACT is simply a bad regulation. It is refuted by the very science used to justify its promulgation. Moreover, its economic effects would be negative and far-reaching, while its estimated benefits would be minimal and hardly worth the significant costs. And it would make domestic energy generation more difficult at a time of rising energy demand. With growing unemployment, huge deficits, and anemic growth, this is also the wrong time to be whacking our economy with one of the most expensive and far-reaching regulations ever to come from the EPA. We have to be smart about this, and Utility MACT is just not a smart regulation. I urge my colleagues to support S.J. Res. 37 and help overturn this misguided, job-killing rule. Again, I will simply say at this point that adopting this resolution is very important to prevent the implementation of a regulation which I think has very clearly been established. It 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. 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. KYL. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).