EPA Stationary Source Regulations Suspension Act

Mr. President. I rise today with Senators Webb, McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Manchin, Ben Nelson, and Conrad to introduce the EPA Regulations Suspension Act of 2011. We are introducing this legislation for a simple but enormously important reason. At a time when our economy is finally headed toward a recovery, the last thing we want to do is add new burdens to American companies that could result in them cutting jobs or being less productive in the global marketplace.

In fact, I believe that the fate of our entire economy, our wide and varied manufacturing industries and our workers, especially our coal workers, rests in part on the decisions we make here in Washington. One thing we should never do is put the fate of an entire industry into the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency.

My legislation is simple and reasonable. It requires that for 2 years the EPA can take no regulatory action, regarding carbon dioxide and methane emission from stationary sources. During that time no facility can be subjected to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane. At the same time the legislation specifically allows for the widely-supported motor vehicle emission standards to continue moving forward.

At the beginning of this year regulations came into effect that say if a company wants to retrofit an existing or build a new power plant, or factory, they now have to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this year the EPA will propose expanding these rules to cover existing stationary sources that are not expanding their operations. The impact of these rules is that companies will sit on the sidelines and opportunities for innovation and job creation will be lost. Because of these new rules companies won't build that new factory. They won't build that new power plant. And so they won't employ some of the millions of Americans who are out of work. That is why I believe these regulations need to be suspended.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I believe that climate change is an important issue and Congress should and will address it working collaboratively with the administration and the private sector.

But the lead should come from Congress and not the EPA. Congress, unlike the EPA, can craft proposals that reduce greenhouse gases while simultaneously protecting our economy. Most importantly, Congress is directly accountable to the people whose lives we impact.

We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that supports rather than undermines our economy and our future.

But the process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be truly bipartisan. It has to acknowledge the fact that all of our States use energy in very different ways. It has to protect our economy. This will not be achieved overnight, but it is possible.

Technology can be a solution to this problem. West Virginia is poised to lead the effort on clean energy technology: because we know energy. We know coal. We know natural gas. We know Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS as few others do. We are coming to know wind and we have great potential in learning how to use our geothermal resources as well.

The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many others either don't understand or refuse to see, which is that our Nation and countries around the world are dependent on coal. That is not something that will change when half the globe is struggling to rise out of poverty.

In this country we get almost half our electricity from coal. That will not change anytime soon. Globally countries such as China and India continue to increase their usage of coal as they develop their economies.

To fight climate change we can't just choose to stop using coal. Even if we in the United States did, the rest of the world wouldn't; and the problem would continue. Instead we must find the technological solution that allows us to use coal, while reducing its impact on the Earth and her people.

I know that there are many on the Republican side of the aisle who believe it does not go far enough. There are many on my side of the aisle who believe it goes too far in tying the EPA's hands. Ultimately I believe this is good legislation because it is an achievable compromise. Too often in this body we seek to score political points on issues rather than solve problems that the country is facing now.

And right now our Nation's manufacturing and industrial sectors are facing the prospect of overwhelming EPA regulation. Regulation that makes it harder for them to put America back to work. While many might think this is not the perfect solution it is a solution that I believe we can and should move early this year.

One piece of the debate that is often missing in our discussions is to keep our focus on people and all the problems, including the problem of climate change, that affect their future.

My focus is on protecting the hard-working people I represent--people who changed my life when I was born anew in the coalfields of West Virginia at the age of 26. These people, their work and their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that creates more problems for them than it fixes; and causes more harm than good in their lives is no solution at all. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does just that.

So that, Mr. President, is why I have introduced this legislation today. I hope that this body will act on it quickly, for we do not have time to waste. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise before you today with Senators Snowe, Leahy, Wyden, Johnson and Kerry to introduce important legislation--the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011--which will make the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This legislation will strengthen our national security both abroad and here at home.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff does an outstanding job providing support to the Secretary of Defense and performing oversight of military personnel and resources within the Department of Defense. However, it lacks the voice of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau who represents more than twenty percent of the uniformed service members.

This is important because each member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is a military adviser to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. In that role, they may offer their advice and opinions to the President, the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, or the Secretary of Defense. And, as we all know, the National Guard has important homeland security responsibilities in addition to national defense responsibilities.

As the former Governor of West Virginia, I cannot say enough about the importance of the National Guard. The National Guard is always there. Whether it is flooding, snow storms, tornadoes, or other disasters, the National Guard comes to the rescue of communities in every State throughout our Nation. And, I would bet that there is a member of the National Guard living in every single congressional district and every single community in our country. These citizen- soldiers are our Governors' emergency force.

Unlike our active-duty forces, the National Guard has both a State and Federal mission. Now I'm not taking anything away from our active- duty or reserve forces as they have always performed, and will continue to perform, in an outstanding fashion. However, the National Guard is unique in that it serves each State's Governor in addition to the President and Commander-in-Chief.

The National Guard's State mission includes responding to natural and man-made disasters as well as domestic emergencies. They have been called to respond to hurricanes, floods and snow storms. They serve next door to each of us.

Among the National Guard's Federal responsibilities is providing homeland defense and defense support to civil authorities. The National Guard accomplishes its Federal mission through a variety of programs. One of those programs is the Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, or High-Yield Explosive Teams, which respond to incidents and support local, State, and Federal agencies as they conduct decontamination, medical support, and casualty search and extraction.

Last year's Quadrennial Defense Review acknowledged that the Department of Defense must be prepared to provide appropriate support to civil authorities. One key finding of the Quadrennial Defense Review was the recognition of the need to field faster, more flexible chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and high-yield explosives events consequence management response forces. As a result of this finding, the National Guard will build a Homeland Response Force in each of the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency regions. These 10 Homeland Response Forces will provide the needed response capability. These are just two of the many ways in which the National Guard works directly with the homeland security community as the central connection between the Federal Government and State and local officials. And, I would be remiss if I did not mention that a primary training unit for these Homeland Response Forces is the West Virginia National Guard's Joint Interagency Training & Education Center.

These Federal programs, along with the National Guard's State mission, clearly illustrate the National Guard's unequivocal role in protecting our home front. And, it goes without saying that our Guard members make tremendous contributions to military operations outside of the United States.

Today, tens of thousands of Guard members train with first responders and protect life and property here at home, while also engaging in combat operations in far-off, dangerous locations--including Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since September 11, 2001, our National Guardsmen have been called upon to deploy abroad at a higher rate than ever before. At the same time their domestic and State missions have expanded. Given the National Guard's role in defending our country, it is important that the National Guard be resourced and equipped to fulfill its dual mission.

Our Guard members must be assured of the ability to meet their obligations to their Governors, their next door neighbors, and to our Nation as a whole. In order to do that, the National Guard's voice must be heard at the highest levels of our government.

By making the Chief of the National Guard Bureau a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Guardians of Freedom Act of 2011 will guarantee that the National Guard is a part of the discussion as the Nation responds to threats both foreign and domestic. It also makes certain that the concerns of the Nation's Governors are considered when resources are scarce. And it will build upon the relationship developed between the active-duty forces and the National Guard, a bond has been strengthened as a result of the ongoing operations.

Before I end my remarks, I want to acknowledge Major General Allen Tackett, the Adjutant General of the West Virginia National Guard for the last 15 years and the longest serving Adjutant General in the country. Major General Tackett is retiring today after enlisting in the Army more than 45 years ago. He has been a great partner and visionary over the years. He led the transformation of the West Virginia National Guard and, according to General McKinley, Chief of the National Guard Bureau, is leaving West Virginia with the Nation's finest National Guard. I can honestly say that we are better off as a Nation because he chose to dedicate his life to defending ours. Thank you, Major General Tackett. God smiled on West Virginia the day he gave us you, and we are eternally grateful.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011, with my colleague and friend, Senator Barbara Boxer.

This bill strengthens and expands legislation proposed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, and it includes many provisions to improve pipeline safety and inspection that Senator Boxer and I proposed last year.

In addition, the bill would also mandate that natural gas pipeline operators comply with recently issued urgent recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB, which call on operators to create ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure'' of every pipeline segment.

NTSB issued these recommendations earlier this month because it discovered very serious problems with Pacific Gas and Electric's recordkeeping during its investigation of the tragic pipeline disaster in San Bruno, California.

Pipes were mislabeled. One was labeled as a seamless 30-inch pipe. In fact, there is no such thing as a 30-inch seamless pipe. Pipes that large are manufactured with seams, according to experts.

Maximum Allowable Operating Pressures of the pipeline at issue cannot be verified.

NTSB's findings are deeply concerning to me. I believe that a utility sending explosive gas under neighborhoods must know what kind of pipe lies under that community.

If it does not know what pipe is underground, how can it operate the pipeline at a safe pressure? How can it inspect for faulty seams and welds if inspectors do not know the pipe has welds in the first place?

I am very distressed by NTSB's findings, and I call on all pipeline operators to verify their records, including Pacific Gas and Electric. The operators should do this on their own accord. In case they do not, this legislation will mandate it.

On September 9th, at 6:11 p.m., a natural gas pipeline in San Bruno, California, just south of San Francisco, exploded, turning a quiet residential area into something resembling a war zone.

The blast in the Crestmoor neighborhood shook the ground like an earthquake.

The first reports suggested it was a plane crash, as the blast site was only two miles from San Francisco International Airport. But as the fire raged on it became clear that something was fueling it.

Firefighters were powerless, as the water main in the area had been burst in the blast. CalFire helicopters were brought in.

The inferno burned for 1 hour and 29 minutes before the gas to the 30-inch transmission pipe could be turned off at two different locations.

One of the valves was 1 mile from the blast, and another was 1.5 miles away.

They were both in secured locations. To shut each valve, a worker needed to drive through rush hour traffic, use a key to get into the area, and attach a handle to the valve to crank it.

It took more than 5 hours to turn off the gas distribution pipelines to the homes on fire.

The blaze damaged or destroyed 55 homes, injured 66, and killed eight people. It consumed 15 acres.

The next day I called the National Transportation Safety Board Chair. Two days later, I visited San Bruno. I walked through the devastation with Christopher Hart, vice chairman of the NTSB.

I saw homes and cars totally incinerated. It was like a bomb had struck.

The sections of pipeline that exploded--now a key part of the investigation--appeared to have ripped apart along longitudinal and circular welds, now 55 years old.

A gaping crater demonstrated the size of the initial blast.

This crater was located at the low point in the valley, where the street and pipeline, that ran down the middle of the street, dipped and rose.

This tragedy shows the heavy toll, in death and destruction, when high pressure natural gas pipelines fail. The risk is unacceptably high.

To address this risk, I join with my colleague, Senator Barbara Boxer, to introduce the Strengthening Pipeline Safety and Enforcement Act of 2011. The legislation:

Doubles the number of Federal pipeline safety inspectors. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration currently has 100 pipeline inspectors, responsible for 217,306 miles of interstate pipeline. Each inspector is responsible for 2,173 miles of pipeline-- the distance from San Francisco to Chicago. NTSB has recently recommended that inspectors ``must establish an aggressive oversight program that thoroughly examines each operator's decision-making process.'' Doubling the number of inspectors will make this possible.

Verifies Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure. The bill would mandate that pipeline operators comply with NTSB's urgent recommendation to verify the accuracy of each pipeline's Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure.

Specifically, pipeline operators must establish ``a traceable, verifiable and complete'' record of pipeline components in order to verify the ``maximum allowable operating pressure,'' based on the weakest section of the pipeline. Pipelines with incomplete records must be pressure tested or replaced, and must operate at reduced pressure until testing is completed.

Requires deployment of electronic valves capable of automatically shutting off the gas in a fire or other emergency. Manual operated valves must be located, accessed, and physically turn off in an emergency. Automatic valves could dramatically reduce damage caused by a pipeline breach.

Mandates inspections by ``smart pigs,'' or the use of an inspection method certified by the Secretary of Transportation as equally effective at finding corrosion and weld defects. Accident statistics over the past decade identify corrosion as the leading cause of all reported pipeline accidents, and the NTSB has found substantial defects in weld of the pipes in San Bruno.

Prohibits natural gas pipelines from operating at high pressure if they cannot be inspected using the most effective inspection technology. This precautionary approach to pipeline operations assures that pipelines more likely to have undetected problems are operated at lower risk.

Prioritizes old pipelines in seismic areas for the highest level of safety oversight. Today, regulators consider a pipeline's proximity to homes and buildings. Other risk factors are not a defining consideration, even though pipe age and seismicity have a clear impact on the risk of a catastrophic incident.

Directs the Department of Transportation to set standards for natural gas leak detection equipment and methods. Today there are no uniform national standards for how to detect leaks.

Finally, the legislation adopts a number of common-sense provisions proposed by Secretary LaHood to improve pipeline safety, including increasing civil penalties for safety violations; expanding data collection to be

included in the national pipeline mapping system; closing jurisdictional loopholes to assure greater oversight of unregulated pipelines; and requiring consideration of a firm's safety record when considering its request for regulatory waivers.

Senator Boxer and I introduce this legislation in order to initiate quick action to make our pipeline system safer.

We have put forward our best ideas to improve inspection, address old pipes, and advance modern safety technology. We hope to improve these ideas as new information comes forward about the San Bruno tragedy.

For instance, just last week, the NTSB issued a new report, which concluded that the welded seams of the San Bruno pipe were imperfect.

Microscopic and X-ray evidence turned up 27 defects on that longitudinal seam that fell short of current day standards, including too-shallow welds and both debris and gas bubbles trapped inside welds.

For the welds running around the circumference of the pipe, investigators found 166 substandard defects.

This pipeline's weld defects were not discovered during 55 years of inspections, even though the Federal Code of Regulations clearly requires utilities to look for such defects, 49 CFR 192.917.

I hope the committee will take a serious look at how to develop an effective inspection regime to find and address flaws and weaknesses in pipeline welds.

We look forward to working with the Senate Commerce Committee to move and improve this legislation expeditiously.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President. I rise today with Senators Webb, McCaskill, Tim Johnson, Manchin, Ben Nelson, and Conrad to introduce the EPA Regulations Suspension Act of 2011. We are introducing this legislation for a simple but enormously important reason. At a time when our economy is finally headed toward a recovery, the last thing we want to do is add new burdens to American companies that could result in them cutting jobs or being less productive in the global marketplace.

In fact, I believe that the fate of our entire economy, our wide and varied manufacturing industries and our workers, especially our coal workers, rests in part on the decisions we make here in Washington. One thing we should never do is put the fate of an entire industry into the hands of the Environmental Protection Agency.

My legislation is simple and reasonable. It requires that for 2 years the EPA can take no regulatory action, regarding carbon dioxide and methane emission from stationary sources. During that time no facility can be subjected to any requirement to obtain a permit or meet a New Source Performance Standard under the Clean Air Act with respect to carbon dioxide or methane. At the same time the legislation specifically allows for the widely-supported motor vehicle emission standards to continue moving forward.

At the beginning of this year regulations came into effect that say if a company wants to retrofit an existing or build a new power plant, or factory, they now have to find ways to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Later this year the EPA will propose expanding these rules to cover existing stationary sources that are not expanding their operations. The impact of these rules is that companies will sit on the sidelines and opportunities for innovation and job creation will be lost. Because of these new rules companies won't build that new factory. They won't build that new power plant. And so they won't employ some of the millions of Americans who are out of work. That is why I believe these regulations need to be suspended.

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I believe that climate change is an important issue and Congress should and will address it working collaboratively with the administration and the private sector.

But the lead should come from Congress and not the EPA. Congress, unlike the EPA, can craft proposals that reduce greenhouse gases while simultaneously protecting our economy. Most importantly, Congress is directly accountable to the people whose lives we impact.

We are capable of tackling this great challenge in a way that supports rather than undermines our economy and our future.

But the process has to work. It has to be open. It has to be truly bipartisan. It has to acknowledge the fact that all of our States use energy in very different ways. It has to protect our economy. This will not be achieved overnight, but it is possible.

Technology can be a solution to this problem. West Virginia is poised to lead the effort on clean energy technology: because we know energy. We know coal. We know natural gas. We know Carbon Capture and Storage or CCS as few others do. We are coming to know wind and we have great potential in learning how to use our geothermal resources as well.

The fact is, we in West Virginia know and embrace what too many others either don't understand or refuse to see, which is that our Nation and countries around the world are dependent on coal. That is not something that will change when half the globe is struggling to rise out of poverty.

In this country we get almost half our electricity from coal. That will not change anytime soon. Globally countries such as China and India continue to increase their usage of coal as they develop their economies.

To fight climate change we can't just choose to stop using coal. Even if we in the United States did, the rest of the world wouldn't; and the problem would continue. Instead we must find the technological solution that allows us to use coal, while reducing its impact on the Earth and her people.

I know that there are many on the Republican side of the aisle who believe it does not go far enough. There are many on my side of the aisle who believe it goes too far in tying the EPA's hands. Ultimately I believe this is good legislation because it is an achievable compromise. Too often in this body we seek to score political points on issues rather than solve problems that the country is facing now.

And right now our Nation's manufacturing and industrial sectors are facing the prospect of overwhelming EPA regulation. Regulation that makes it harder for them to put America back to work. While many might think this is not the perfect solution it is a solution that I believe we can and should move early this year.

One piece of the debate that is often missing in our discussions is to keep our focus on people and all the problems, including the problem of climate change, that affect their future.

My focus is on protecting the hard-working people I represent--people who changed my life when I was born anew in the coalfields of West Virginia at the age of 26. These people, their work and their lives matter. Any regulatory solution that creates more problems for them than it fixes; and causes more harm than good in their lives is no solution at all. EPA regulation of greenhouse gases does just that.

So that, Mr. President, is why I have introduced this legislation today. I hope that this body will act on it quickly, for we do not have time to waste. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Conrad to introduce legislation to ensure that our seniors and disabled citizens have timely access to home health services under the Medicare program.

Nurse practitioners, physician assistants, certified nurse midwives and clinical nurse specialists are all playing increasingly important roles in the delivery of health care services, particularly in rural and medically underserved areas of our country where physicians may be in scarce supply. In recognition of their growing role, Congress, in 1997, authorized Medicare to begin paying for physician services provided by these health professionals as long as those services are within their scope of practice under State law.

Despite their expanded role, these advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants are currently unable to order home health services for their Medicare patients. Under current law, only physicians are allowed to certify or initiate home health care for Medicare patients, even though they may not be as familiar with the patient's case as the non-physician provider. In fact, in many cases, the certifying physician may not even have a relationship with the patient and must rely upon the input of the nurse practitioner, physician assistant, clinical nurse specialist or certified nurse midwife to order the medically necessary home health care. At best, this requirement adds more paperwork and a number of unnecessary steps to the process before home health care can be provided. At worst, it can lead to needless delays in getting Medicare patients the home health care they need simply because a physician is not readily available to sign the form.

The inability of advanced practice registered nurses and physician assistants to order home health care is particularly burdensome for Medicare beneficiaries in medically underserved areas, where these providers may be the only health care professionals available. For example, needed home health care was delayed by more than a week for a Medicare patient in Nevada because the physician assistant was the only health care professional serving the patient's small town, and the supervising physician was located 60 miles away.

A nurse practitioner told me about another case in which her collaborating physician had just lost her father and was not available. As a consequence, the patient experienced a two-day delay in getting needed care while they waited to get the paperwork signed by another physician. Another nurse practitioner pointed out that it is ridiculous that she can order physical and occupational therapy in a subacute facility but cannot order home health care. One of her patients had to wait 11 days after being discharged before his physical and occupational therapy could continue simply because the home health agency had difficulty finding a physician to certify the continuation of the same therapy that the nurse practitioner had been able to authorize when the patient was in the facility.

The Home Health Care Planning Improvement Act will help to ensure that our Medicare beneficiaries get the home health care that they need when they need it by allowing physician assistants, nurse practitioners, clinical nurse specialists and certified nurse midwives to order home health services. Our legislation is supported by the National Association for Home Care and Hospice, the American Nurses Association, the American Academy of Physician Assistants, the American College of Nurse Practitioners, the American College of Nurse Midwives, the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, and the Visiting Nurse Associations of America. I urge all of my colleagues to join us as cosponsors of this important legislation.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation that is an important step for the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturing by continuing the nurturing of the market for the next generation of electric vehicles. This bill will continue the availability of the $7,500 consumer tax credit for plug-in hybrid vehicles. Current law limits the availability of this plug-in hybrid tax credit to the first 200,000 vehicles per manufacturer, which is too small to support the revolutionary technological change that we are hopefully going to witness. Failure to provide this support risks falling short of President Obama's important goal of putting 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

The U.S. auto industry is poised for a technological explosion that promises to fundamentally change transportation here and around the world. Already, the success of GM's Volt has demonstrated that electric vehicles are not just an engineer's dream or a science fiction story. They are real, and there is plenty more innovation ready to be unleashed.

But like almost every transformational technology, from the great railroads to the Internet, this technological revolution needs support if it is to spread. President Obama last week laid out a vision of how this kind of technology can help ensure our economic future. With the proper support, we can transform transportation and create new jobs for American workers. But if we fail to support this revolution, we risk missing an opportunity that we may never get back. If we do not get it right, there is no doubt that other countries will--and their workers-- in China, India, South Korea and elsewhere--will then build these vehicles instead of American workers.

So I am pleased today to be introducing this bill that is identical to one that my brother Sandy Levin introduced last week in the House of Representatives. This legislation will increase the cap on the number of vehicles eligible for the plug-in hybrid tax credit in current law and provide much greater certainty to our manufacturers. It says to our manufacturers that

we will support technology of great potential and it says to consumers we will continue to help make these vehicles more available and affordable. This change in law will make a difference immediately, and it is an important signal of future support for the transformation of our transportation sector.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.