A joint resolution 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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

This last Sunday I was watching an ABC morning news show, and Christiane Amanpour was interviewing the Speaker of the House, John Boehner of Ohio. Speaker Boehner was asked a number of questions. The one he clearly wanted to focus on is what he called the Republican jobs program. He handed to Ms. Amanpour a laminated card which he said was the Republican jobs program that had passed the House of Representatives and was dying in the Senate. It has never been called for passage. It struck me as odd because I missed that during the course of this last year that there was a Republican jobs program, and I was a little bit worried because we are looking for every opportunity we can to create jobs.

So I came back and said to my staff, can you get a copy of this laminated card? I want to see what is written on it. They produced the card for me, and I took a look at it. As a result, I would have to say the Republican view on how to create jobs and move the economy forward is considerably different than my own and considerably different than the views of most Americans. What Republicans have proposed doing is eliminating rules and regulations. They believe that is what is holding back the growth of the American economy. One of the areas they particularly focused on is known as the Dodd-Frank bill, the Wall Street reform bill.

Some of us are not suffering from political amnesia. We can recall what

happened just a few years ago all across America when at the end of the Bush administration we faced some of the worst choices I have ever heard when we were presented an opportunity by the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, and the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Paulson, to literally bail out the Wall Street banks and major institutions to the tune of almost $800 billion from the mistakes they had made. So we were given an ultimatum: If we didn't do it, we could see a collapse of our American economy and the global economy. Reluctantly, many of us voted for that, believing that we had no choice. What we did was to send billions of dollars to banks on Wall Street that had made serious mistakes, creating credit default swaps and derivatives, creating offices in London that could skirt the American laws and, literally, hanging the American economy out to dry. The net result of that, of course, is that people suffered all across America. Individuals lost their savings and their retirements. Families were facing hardship when they were laid off and faced unemployment. Businesses closed and restructured and downsized. The whole economy suffered because of what was clearly wrongdoing on the part of our financial communities. As a result of that, President Obama said, We need to change the rules and laws in America so there will be adequate oversight so that we never get in this mess again.

The first amendment on the Dodd-Frank bill in the Senate was offered by Senator Boxer of California, which said this is the end of too big to fail. We are never walking down this path again. So we put the financial institutions and corporations of America on notice that we were not going to bail them out in the future, should they make another colossal mistake, at the expense of workers and families and businesses across America.

Then we went through the entire regulatory law as it related to Wall Street, including the stock exchanges and all of the exchanges across America, and said, What do we need to do to make certain there is transparency, to make certain the banks that were overleveraged and loaning far more than they should are in a position where they are fiscally sound, financially sound, and how do we put cops on the beat on Wall Street through the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to guard against this ever occurring again? We offered that as Wall Street reform, with the support of President Obama, but with the support of only three Republican Senators: Senators Brown, Snowe, and Collins. The majority of Republican Senators and Congressmen would not support us in this effort. We passed it anyway. The President signed it. It is now being implemented, moving forward and, I think, long overdue.

It turns out that is one of the first things the Republicans now want to eliminate in their effort to build the American economy. I can tell my colleagues we would be building the American economy on a foundation of sand if we did that. If we ignored the experience we had a few years ago when we were forced into this bailout situation, sending billions to the biggest bankers in America, and having them turn around and declare bonuses for their top officers and employees--if we ignore that reality and that history and say we were going to follow the Republican lead and eliminate this oversight of Wall Street, it would invite another economic disaster. Yet, that is one of the House Republican plans for rebuilding the American economy.

The financial crisis of 2008 wiped out 8 million jobs in America. Twenty-four million Americans today are still suffering--unemployed or underemployed. Millions of families have lost their homes. A report in the Chicago newspapers this morning was stunning and troubling. Almost 50 percent of the homes in our region in Chicago are under water. What it means is families have borrowed more in their mortgages than their home is currently valued. That is a troubling development, but it is a reality. It reflects what happened when the overanxious and overinflated real estate market got out of hand. We don't want that to happen again. If we are going to avoid it, we have to have appropriate oversight and regulation.

Many families have seen their home values plummet, not just in Chicago but nationwide. Their retirement savings have been cut in half over the last 4 years. In Illinois and across America, solid, well-run companies, many in business for decades, have been shaken to the core for the lack of credit and the lack of customers.

So what do our Republican colleagues offer as a solution? What is the Republican jobs plan? Incredibly, they have responded to America's economic crisis not by rethinking their deregulation dogma, but by doubling down. Let me explain.

In addition to repealing Wall Street reform, Republicans are trying to change the most basic protections we have in America for clean air and pure drinking water. Think about this: The Republican majority in the House has voted 168 times this year--168 times--to undercut clean air and clean water laws and to block efforts to limit global warming, protect public health, protect the public lands we have been left by previous generations, and guard against things such as future oilspills. They voted 168 times just this year, and they are not finished.

Our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have attached more than 50 anti-environmental policy riders so far to spending bills for next year. They are unrelenting. I won't go into all of the environmental and public health protections the Republicans are trying to block. Let me focus on two. Republicans have used the Senate's expedited procedures to place bills blocking these two new rules directly on the Senate calendar rather than going through the regular order.

It is their right to do that. They are saying, in effect, we don't have time for the normal rules. We don't have time to hear from scientists or the American people. We need to bury these rules right now.

The first rule they want to delay is the boiler MACT rule. It is an acronym that stands for maximum achievable controlled technology. The boiler MACT rule would reduce the amount of mercury, dioxins, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants that can be emitted by large industrial boilers and solid waste incinerators. Is that the key to building jobs in America, large industrial boilers spewing more toxic chemicals into the air, solid waste incinerators burning without the regulations to protect the people who happen to live downwind? These chemicals can cause cancer, heart, lung, and kidney disease, damage to eyes and skin, impair brain development in children and babies, and learning ability, and they can kill people. That is a fact.

The other new clean air rule in the crosshairs from the Republicans is the so-called cross-State air pollution rule. It would require significant reductions in two toxic chemicals--sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide--released by electric powerplants. These chemicals not only cause sickness and death, they can spread hundreds of miles downwind and across State lines.

Many States can't develop new jobs and industries because they have reached their air pollution limits under national clean air standards, not because of what they are doing in their States, but rather for the wind that is blowing from other States with pollution. It puts them over the limit for emissions that travel from old coal-burning powerplants in other States. That is not right, and it is not fair.

The cross-State air pollution rule would set new limits on sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions and establish an emissions cap- and-trade system for 31 Eastern States and the District of Columbia. It is a reasonable, market-based solution to a serious public health threat. The Republicans would abolish it.

Both the boiler MACT rule and the cross-State air pollution rule replace rules that were developed by the EPA as far back as the Bush administration--rules that were stricken by the DC Circuit Court. In both cases, the court ordered the EPA to come up with a new rule. House Republicans have already passed a bill to delay these new air pollution quality standards for at least 15 months, and here in the Senate, they would delay them for up to 5 years. As for the cross-State air pollution rule, Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a resolution of disapproval to kill it altogether so there will be no standard, so if a person happens to live downwind from a polluting powerplant and that person's

State is trying to do its best to clean up its act, it is to no avail. The air pollution quality will be so bad in that State because of the neighboring State that people will face serious problems and restrictions in their own development.

The House has taken an even more radical approach. They voted almost entirely along party lines, passing a Republican bill called the TRAIN Act, that would delay indefinitely the cross-State air pollution rule, and another lifesaving rule, the mercury and air toxics standard. The TRAIN Act would also overturn the legal requirement that EPA's public health rules be based on the best advice of scientists, not the demands of politicians or their donors. It is the most serious attack on the Clean Air Act since the law was passed 40 years ago under Republican President Richard M. Nixon.

President Obama has already said he is going to veto any bills that would delay the new clean air rules. Our Republican colleagues know they don't have the votes to override his veto, so once again they are forcing the Senate to debate measures they know have no chance--zero chance--of becoming law.

And that is the Republican jobs plan.

Republicans say Federal agencies should analyze the cost of business of every new regulation, whether it is meant to protect against Wall Street recklessness, offshore oil disasters, lead-based toys, or killer cantaloupes. If a regulation hurts the corporate bottom line, the Republicans argue it shouldn't be passed.

I have a counterproposal for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Any politician who proposes deregulating an industry ought to be required to tell the public how much money deregulation would cost, how many jobs might be lost, how many lives may be cut short, how many children and other members of our families may end up in the hospital, and how much of our Nation's natural treasures may be scarred or destroyed. Let's have an honest assessment on both sides of the ledger.

When I travel across my State, much like in the Presiding Officer's State, we have big cities and small towns. I go to schools and talk to kids, and usually they have the common questions--do you have a limousine, how much money do you make--things that kids ask. So I ask questions back to them. One question I have started asking in every school is the following: How many of you know someone who is suffering from asthma? Without fail, more than half the hands will go up. In Mount Sterling, IL, a small farm town down in Brown County in downstate Illinois, half the hands went up. I guarantee that in every classroom in the city of Chicago, more than half of the hands will go up. Asthma has become an epidemic in America and is related to many things, including the quality of the air we breathe. On the South Side of Chicago, it is hard to find a child who doesn't suffer from asthma.

In 2007, the cost of asthma-related hospitalizations in Illinois totaled $280 million. The average stay costs $15,000 for an asthma case, and nearly 60 percent of those hospital costs were paid for by taxpayers through Medicaid and Medicare. Air pollution makes asthma worse. If we reduce air pollution we can reduce asthma attacks, asthma- related deaths, and save taxpayers tens of billions of dollars a year just for the cost of treating that single disease. That is something we never hear when the disciples of deregulation start preaching.

Here are some other facts we won't hear about deregulation from the deregulation devotees. The new boiler MACT rule will create jobs, not eliminate them. It would prevent between 2,500 and 6,500 premature deaths each year, and it would save between $22 billion and $54 billion a year in health care costs.

The cross-State air pollution rule, which they would also abolish, would also net thousands of new jobs, prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma and 34,000 premature deaths each year, and save $280 billion in health care costs. In my State alone, the cross-State rule will save 1,500 lives a year and provide enough public health benefits to save our State $12 billion. Twelve billion dollars in Illinois--that is more than Illinois spent on health, hospitals, and highways combined in the year 2009.

Deregulation is a costly gamble even for businesses that are deregulated. During the last administration, oil companies were allowed to self-regulate under the Bush administration. How did that work in the Gulf of Mexico with British Petroleum? The gulf oilspill is the worst industrial environmental disaster in U.S. history. Congratulations, self-regulators.

Local businesses suffered $4 billion to $12 billion in lost income because of self-regulation by a major oil company. BP alone is likely to spend $40 billion in claims, fines, and other expenses from this historic, awful spill.

Those who push for deregulation tell us environmental rules are job killers and nothing but a burden on businesses and consumers. They are wrong. Regulations that are well designed are, to borrow a phrase from our Republican friends, job creators. They can spur innovation and create new products, new jobs, even whole new industries. A study published by the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst estimates that new air pollution rules for electric powerplants ``will provide long-term economic benefits across much of the United States in the form of highly skilled, well-paid jobs through infrastructure investment.''

Specifically, researchers found that clean air investments could create 1.5 million new jobs in 2015 right here at home. Let me bring this story closer to home. Recently I made a trip in Illinois to a new coal-fired plant. It is a plant that is amazing. It is called the Prairie State Energy Campus and it is owned by a number of electric cooperatives. It has a $1 billion investment in the clean use of coal to produce electricity. They took a look at the law, and instead of hiring lawyers to fight it, they hired engineers to comply with it.

The plant is up and running. It is a marvel to behold. Right across from this plant is a coal mine, and the coal that is drawn from that mine goes into this plant and meets all the specifications required today by the EPA. The people who are running this plant are not whining and crying and begging for relief. They rolled up their sleeves and built a plant much cleaner than anything that existed in the United States, and they are proving it can be profitable.

I wish my Republican friends would come to the Prairie State Energy Campus. They should see and know that 4,000 union jobs were created for the construction of this plant, and they expect to have 500 permanent local jobs to boost the Illinois economy by $785 million a year with our own local coal.

The campus includes two generators that will produce 1,600 megawatts of clean, low-cost energy for more than 2.5 million customers in the Midwest. It is going to go online by the end of this year.

By using the latest technology, the plant's carbon dioxide emissions will be 15 percent lower than what is typically discharged from U.S. coal-fired powerplants.

In addition, the plant is going to save an estimated 200,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year by using coal from an adjacent mine instead of mining it in some other place and shipping it to the site of the power generation.

One hundred-sixty coal miners are working in the adjacent mine. I went there. It was not my first visit to a coal mine, but it is always an eye-opener to go in and see how they mine coal today. Two weeks ago, Prairie State announced plans to hire even more miners.

In Illinois, incidentally, coal miners make a pretty decent wage, $65,000 a year. So these are good jobs, right here in America, mining coal to be used in a clean coal plant. It can be done. The Republicans ought to acknowledge it can be done, and new jobs are being created in the process, while we are reducing air pollution.

In a recent survey, two out of three Americans say they support new clean air rules and oppose what the Republicans are trying to do in the name of job creation. Nearly 90 percent of all Americans--nearly 60 percent of Republicans and conservatives, I might add--said Congress should not prevent the EPA from enforcing the new rules. I wish my Republican friends, who are so dead set on eliminating these standards for air and water pollution, would listen to the people across America who want cleaner air and purer drinking water and are willing to see reasonable regulations to reach those goals.

The push to kill the new clean air rules is not coming from the American

people. It is part of a huge power grab. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Republicans in Congress have launched an unprecedented antiregulation campaign. The Chamber is reportedly spending millions of dollars to push the message that regulations are job killers. Their goal is to roll back existing environmental, health, financial, and other regulatory protections and to block any new protections. They are using the American jobs crisis to try to push through an agenda that will increase our deficit, actually take away jobs in America, and cause thousands of Americans to get sick and some to die.

Just cut taxes on millionaires and billionaires and get rid of government regulation and, they believe, we can get the economy humming again. That is their credo. If that were true, the last administration would have been the most prosperous in our history because that is the message and philosophy and agenda that guided the Bush administration. Instead, in the words of the Wall Street Journal--not exactly a Democratic publication--George Bush's administration produced ``the worst jobs record on record.''

We have tried this. It does not work. We have seen this movie. We know how it ends. This notion of protecting millionaires from any taxes and repealing any laws related to the regulation of our economy did not work under the Bush administration and should not be tried again.

The reason 2 million Americans are out of work has nothing to do with excessive financial or environmental regulation. If anything, our economy is hurting because we do not have the appropriate regulation in place now to avoid the excesses of the past.

To say we cannot create jobs without allowing dangerous levels of toxic chemicals into our air and water is an absolutely false choice. We have to find an approach that protects the health of American families and balances the needs of business and is based on the reality of science.

For 40 years, Democrats and Republicans used to work together on this agenda. We need to do it again. In the meantime, if our Republican colleagues want to create good middle-class jobs here at home, let's pass the President's American Jobs Act. This will not only create jobs, it will fund infrastructure and road repairs. It will cut payroll taxes for working families, saving the average family about $1,500 a year, and extend badly needed unemployment benefits for those out of work. It will keep hundreds of thousands of teachers in the classroom and cops and firefighters on the job in our neighborhoods and communities.

That is the way to create good jobs. America does not need dirty water and dirty air to create good-paying jobs. I hope the Republican agenda, even if it is laminated on a card passed out by Speaker John Boehner, will realize we can do better in this country by not compromising our public health and the great Nation in which we live.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, would the Chair let me know when I have used 5 minutes, and then I am going to yield to Senator Reed for up to 8 minutes.

Mr. President, I wish to be clear about this. If the Paul resolution passes--which I don't think it will, it is so extreme-- people in 38 States, 248 million people, will be adversely impacted with filthy, dirty air.

In the Senator's own State of Kentucky, the prediction is, based on science, that between 530 people and 1,400 people will succumb to premature death. So we are not talking about some political argument. We are talking about the very life and death of the people we represent. I wish to thank Senators Durbin, Whitehouse, Lautenberg, Shaheen, and Ayotte for already speaking out on the floor against the Paul resolution.

I hope we will have a big vote because we are dealing with the health of the people, with the health of the children, with the ability of people to work--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work--and we are dealing with jobs, many jobs, over 1 million jobs that are created as a result of clean technology.

Senator Paul insulted the people of America. There was a poll just taken last month where 67 percent of voters support the cross-state air pollution rule. That is 85 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents, and 48 percent of Republicans. Are they extremists? No. They are mainstream. Are the groups who support this rule extremists?

I think the Senator owes an apology to the American Lung Association for making it sound as if they are for air pollution rules because they are getting some kind of payoff. It is an outrage, a complete outrage. Does he

think the National Association of County Health Officials is extremist? He said the American Lung Association. He already attacked them. How about the American Nurses Association, does he think they are extremists? Does he think President Richard Nixon was an extremist when he signed the Clean Air Act and he said: ``Clean air, clean water, open spaces--these should once again be the birthright of every American.'' Does he think Richard Nixon was an extremist?

Let's talk about what he wants to do. He wants to repeal a very important rule that is going to clean up the air, that is going to reduce toxic poison soot and smog-forming air pollution that impacts air quality for over 240 million people.

Let me say this. I know all 100 of us in this Chamber would condemn it if somebody took all their garbage and put it on the lawn of the next-door neighbor. That is what this cross-air pollution rule is about. It is about States that don't crack down on pollution. They have smokestacks that blow the pollution into other States and they say: Isn't it wonderful? We don't have any problem here; it is your problem.

When I made this analogy, Senator Carper corrected me. He said: The Senator is right. It is a good analogy as far as it goes, but garbage is not usually poison. I will amend my analogy to say this: If we knew that someone had garbage that included poison and they took that garbage that included poison and put it on someone else's front lawn, that would be a terrible thing to do, and it would be the moral responsibility of that party to clean it up and not do it again. That is what this rule is about.

I wish to talk about specifics rather than be vague. This rule that Senator Paul seeks to cancel and repeal prevents up to 34,000 cases of premature death, 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 million lost work and schooldays. It is estimated to provide up to $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014.

So all this flailing around of arms and calling people extremists simply cannot erase the fact that what Senator Paul is doing is extreme and is hurtful to our people.

How many people feel good when they look at a child such as this who is desperately seeking air? Here is the exhaler, this plant, and here is her inhaler. Exhale from these dirty plants and inhale clean air.

It reminds me of a story I just read in the New York Times that talks about China.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 minute, and then I will yield 8 minutes to Senator Reed.

In China, the leaders there are arrogant and they are elitists and they surround themselves with air purifiers in their offices, in their homes, in the great hall of the people where they work, which is opulent, but the rest of the people in China have to breathe filthy, dirty air. In a recent trip there, our group did not see the sun for 7 days.

``Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's famously foul air.'' That is the story in the Times. ``The privileges of China's elites include purified air.'' Well, I don't think anybody ought to be able to insulate themselves from the quality of the air. We have to clean up the air for everybody, not just an elite few. So I think Senator Paul's resolution under the CRA should be soundly defeated.

At this time, I yield 8 minutes to Senator Jack Reed.

Mr. President, I wish to address that, if I could for a moment, for the benefit of Senator Coats. I was going to speak for a much longer block, but I didn't. I yielded the time to Senator Reed, and I retain the time I have. So I only did it because he was trapped in a hearing. But it is up to the Senators, however they want to proceed.

I am happy to do that. I will retain my time and yield to the Senator from Indiana.

I am retaining my time.

Mr. President, if my colleague would withhold for just 50 seconds.

I thank the Senator.

I would like to make a quick point before my colleague, Senator Sessions, leaves the floor.

I want to first of all thank the Senator very much for working with us in the EPW Committee. As I said to the Senator privately, in our committee,

when it comes to infrastructure, we are all very closely tied, and we support each other. When it comes to the environment, we see things differently.

I want to say to my friend who is very wise in many ways, I do not know why he would question--he has a total right to question the EPA's assertion--that if we pass the Rand Paul repeal, it would result in 34,000 premature deaths. I want to point out he is not a cardiovascular specialist or a lung specialist. Neither am I. But I think it is important to rely on those who are, such as the American Association of Cardiovascular Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the College of Preventive Medicine, the Lung Association, the Nurses Association, and I will not go on because I only have 1 minute. But I will list these. I would hope we would look to these groups because I do not know of anyone in this body who is a specialist in cardiovascular or lung conditions. And these groups oppose the Paul resolution because they think people will get ill and they will die prematurely.

I yield 8 minutes to Senator Alexander.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Menendez go for 5 minutes and Senator Blunt for 10 minutes following that.

How much time remains on the Republican side and on this side?

Thank you. I will use some time on our side until we have another speaker, which will probably about be 5 minutes. I know Senator Reid will want to have the floor.

Mr. President, this is a very important vote that is coming up. I wish to put into perspective what we are talking about. In 1997--by my calculation, that is 14 years ago--several States went to the EPA and said their people were suffering because certain States were producing horrible pollution--toxic, dirty pollution--and it was floating right over to their States and then their States had to face the impact of that pollution, which was causing asthma attacks, heart attacks, cardiovascular problems, all sorts of problems and that their State, the recipient of the dirty air, was then expected to clean it up.

I liken that to this: If you had toxic garbage in your house and went and dumped it on your neighbor's front lawn and said now it is your problem. That is not what we believe in America. We believe in responsibility.

But the Paul amendment would say, no, we cannot ask those States that are producing pollution that is floating to other States and harming their people to do anything about it. That is what this rule is about. It is the cross-State air pollution rule. The pollution goes across one State into another. I believe 38 States would be adversely impacted if the Paul resolution were to pass.

Let's look at this. I am not just being rhetorical. The scientists have looked at this. They said that if the Paul amendment were to pass and we repeal this cross-State air pollution rule and States could feel very fine about dumping their pollution in another State, there would be 34,000 cases of premature death, there would be 19,000 emergency room and hospital visits, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks, and 1.8 million lost work and schooldays, and we would lose up to $280 billion in annual benefits by 2014.

So anyone who stands in this Chamber and tells us that by voting for the Paul resolution we are helping people, don't fall for it. It is wrong. If anyone comes to this floor and says: Oh, this is about jobs, it is wrong--because if we cannot breathe, we cannot work. Lost days at work are an economic burden. If we turn the clock back, all this great clean-tech economy we have, which is exported to the rest of the world--and it is huge; it employs more than 1 million people--we hurt those jobs. So the Paul resolution, which would cancel out a very important protective air pollution rule that helps our people--that resolution is one of the worst things to come before this Senate.

Let me tell you who backs me on this: The American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehab, the American Association of Respiratory Care, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Thoracic Society, the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, the National Association of Medical Direction of Respiratory Care, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, the National Home Oxygen Patients Association--which sees people gasping for air.

Have you ever seen a child gasp for air? It is something you don't forget. I will show a photo of a beautiful child who is forced to wear one of these inhalers too often because she cannot breathe. We hear lots of things: Oh, we need more time for this. How about the polluters knew about this since 1997? How about since 2005, when they learned the Bush administration rule was too weak--how about that?

I see Senator Carper. Since we are going back and forth, this would be a good time for Senator Lee to speak. How much time is Senator Lee going to need?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 5 minutes for Senator Lee, followed by 8 minutes for Senator Carper.

Mr. President, how much time remains on each side?

Mr. President, we have heard the same theme over and over from our Republican friends: We need time, give us time. The EPA is rushing this.

Well, how much time do they need to fix a problem that is forcing children to put on these inhalers? How much time do they need to enforce a rule that is keeping people from dying prematurely; that is keeping them from getting heart attacks?

Here is the deal. In 1997, several States went to the EPA and said: Something is really wrong. We have kids like this gasping for air, and the air pollution isn't coming from our State. It is coming from the States to the west of us.

Now, I want to make it clear that my State of California doesn't have a dog in this fight. We are not involved in this. We don't pollute. We don't have a lot of coal-powered plants. And we are in the far west. Frankly, having that ocean along our State helps us. We have plenty of air pollution, but we are not getting it from another State to our west. So I stand here speaking, frankly, as a Senator who cares about clean air, who cares about the public health, and who also sees this as a moral issue.

I have said this every way I can say it. It is immoral to take poison and put it on someone else's front yard. It is immoral to walk away from your responsibility, particularly if you have a truck to put it in and take it away.

Well, we have the technology to make cleaner utilities, to make cleaner power. And as my friend Tom Carper so eloquently stated, clean tech creates jobs.

We have the technology. We have the ability to create jobs cleaning up the environment. We have an ability to make sure fewer children, such as this beautiful child, don't have to resort to inhalers if we clean up our powerplants, and we have the ability to do that. The other side is crying, We need time. That is all we need, we need time. Well, I think 14 years is enough time.

Then in 2005, the courts said again how important it was to do this. So they knew about this in 1997, they knew about it in 2005, and now they are crying bitter tears and they want to continue to dump poison in States next door. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the Republican Party's desire to repeal important health and safety regulations. The American people do not agree with it.

Let me show you a poll that was taken last month in terms of where people stand. This cross-State air pollution rule is very popular with the people of this country because they see very clearly. I think when we were kids our moms always said, clean up your room. You know, you owe it to the rest of the family, clean up your room. Polluters have to clean up their room. Polluters can't pollute at will and, as Senator Carper said, build these big smokestacks and blow that pollution over to, in this case, 38 other States and hurt the people in those States. That is not the American way. What Senator Paul is doing is the height of irresponsibility.

I want to put back the picture of that child again.

How is it responsible to allow the pollution to go on and on and on when you have the technology developed to stop it, and when it is moving out of your State and going to another State and harming children?

I would be happy to yield.

It would.

I will respond on my time; the Senator can respond on his.

Let me tell you something. As far as I know, we do not have one person in this Senate who is a physician with a degree in lung specialty, thoracic specialty, cardiovascular specialty; therefore, we need to look to those people.

You are right. When you go to the hospital and talk to physicians, they will tell you about children dying in their arms. I have seen that testimony, I have heard it in front of our committee. The fact is, this rule will prevent 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma

attacks and 1.8 million lost work and school days. This is factual.

I want to say that hearing people come on this floor questioning whether there is an association between soot in the air and asthma attacks, frankly, is to me unimaginable. And we have all of the health organizations that disagree with Senator Paul on that.

Absolutely. I don't know of any medical groups that support the Paul resolution. But I do have in my hand a letter signed by many groups, which I wish to quote from.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this important letter Senator Durbin is speaking of.

Blocking the cross-air pollution rule, cross-State pollution rule would force people living in downwind States to continue to suffer from high levels of unhealthy pollution from out-of-State powerplants. They say they express their strong opposition. They say ozone and particulate matter are associated with numerous adverse health effects, including lung disease, irreversible reductions in lung function--irreversible.

So it is not as though you have a bad day and you are gasping for air, and suddenly the next day it comes back. Irreversible reduction in lung function. Asthma attacks. And, by the way, we are told there will be 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if we go back on this rule. Aggravation of other respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. And, I would say to the Senator, they add premature death. Here they are saying 34,000 cases of premature death. I will give you a few of the names of the people who signed this.

I am so glad the Senator came down here. He has been such a great leader on these issues and, I want to say for the record, led me and so many others, the majority of the House, in saying no more smoking on airplanes. And, boy, we remembered how it was in those days, and I know the Senator's personal experience with lack of lung function and his own dad. So the Senator coming over here today is very appreciated. I will give you the names of some of these organizations.

I will.

Absolutely. Well, first of all, I want people to know that since the Clean Air Act passed and there were all these predictions of a horrible recession, there has been a huge number of jobs created and it is all documented on one of these charts here. I can tell you, our GDP rose more than any other industrialized nation in the world as we cleaned up the air.

The Senator and I were on a trip to China. We did not see the Sun for days and days and days. I don't know if you missed this or caught this story in the New York Times. The Chinese elites in the government--many of whom we met with there to try to push our agenda, which is trade with China and all the other things we want and making sure their currency is floating--this is what we learned:

Chinese leaders are largely insulated from Beijing's

famously foul air.

In the Great Hall there they have all these fabulous clean air devices. In their homes they are protected, in their cars they are protected. But guess what. The people are suffering and struggling. They don't even get to see the Sun shine there. If I could say, I don't want to see elitism here. Every single person in our country deserves to have a chance to breathe clean air.

To get specifically to the point, to talk about the economy--because I think that is critical--Senator Paul's resolution is bad for this economy. It is bad for jobs. It is bad for our families.

That is why it is opposed by every health professional.

Let me say this. We are talking about 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma attacks if this resolution passes. We are talking about 34,000 cases of premature death.

I want to make a point here. If you are the head of household and you die prematurely because of filthy, polluted, poisonous air that is floating in from another State, you can't work and your family is in deep trouble. I will tell you this, the annual benefits by 2014-- annual, of this rule--are estimated to be $280 billion a year. So if anyone stands up here and says we are fighting for jobs, we are fighting for the people, we are fighting for the economy by rolling back clean air rules, don't believe it for a minute. If you don't want to listen to me or Senator Durbin, listen to the people I know you respect, from the American Association of Cardiovascular Rehabilitation, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the American Lung Association, the American Nurses Association. Those nurses have held those babies.

How much time remains on our side?

I hope we vote down this resolution.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of clean air, clean water, electricity, and jobs. I think we can have a clean environment and jobs, but not if we let this administration continue to pass job- killing regulations. These new regulations will cost over $2 billion, and over the course of a decade or more may well exceed $100 billion. We add these new regulations to over $2 trillion worth of regulations already on the books. The President is adding $10 billion worth of regulations every month, and we wonder--we have 14 million people out of work, 2 million new people out of work since this President took office. Yet we continue to add regulation upon regulation.

So far this year President Obama has added $80 billion worth of new regulations. If this President is serious about job creation, he needs to cease and desist from adding new job-killing regulations. The vote today has nothing to do with repealing the Clean Air Act. I am sure we will hear hysterics on the other side. We will hear from environmental extremists. But this has nothing to do with repealing the Clean Air Act. We have rules in place to control emissions from our utility plants. We are not arguing against that. In fact, we are arguing for continuing the same rules that have been in place for some time.

Over the decades our environment has become cleaner and cleaner. Emissions have gone down with each successive decade. We are simply asking that the clean air regulations already on the books stay in place and that we do not make the regulations so onerous that we put utility plants out of business so we have an inability to supply electricity to this country.

Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from coal-fired plants. If we shut down the coal-fired plants or if we bankrupt them--as the President explicitly said in his campaign, that would be the desire of his policies--if that should occur, be prepared for brownouts in our big cities, be prepared for days when there will not be electricity, but also be prepared for rising unemployment as these job-killing regulations put a stranglehold on the economy.

The question is, Can we have clean air and jobs? Absolutely. But to have clean air and jobs we must have balance. We are at the point of becoming so overzealous and of overreaching to such a great extent that we are killing jobs. We are killing industry. We are going backwards in time.

Before we add new regulations we must ask, Are the current regulations working? The answer is an unequivocal yes. Emissions from utility plants have been declining for decades. In fact, while coal- based power has nearly doubled in the last several decades, emissions have been reduced by 60 percent.

I need to repeat that because if we listen to the hysterics, we would think otherwise. We would think the Statue of Liberty will shortly be underwater and the polar bears are all drowning and that we are dying from pollution. It is absolutely and utterly untrue. All of the statistics--and these are statistics from the EPA--all of the statistics from government, from the EPA, show declining pollution. Everything about this argument shows that the environment has been improving for decades. In fact, John Stossel has done a program on this, and he asked fifth graders: Do you think the environment is cleaner now or 30 years ago? All of our schoolchildren have been brainwashed by these environmental hysterics who say, oh, it is a lot worse now. It is actually much better now.

Here are some statistics. We are talking about regulating two emissions that come from utility plants. The first is sulfur dioxide. We can see in the midst of the range, the average has been going down every decade. We have reduced sulfur dioxide just in the last 6 years by 45 percent under the current regulations.

If we look at the nitrous oxides, which are also regulated under this series of regulations, we can also see they have been in decline. The existing rules are working. Nitrous oxides, which can create ozone, are down 45 percent in the last 5 years. The existing rules are working. All we are arguing for is that we not become overzealous, that we not overreach, that the regulators and the regulations not become job- killing regulations. That is where we are headed.

This administration has proposed a series of radical changes to our environmental law. These are regulations that are being written by unelected bureaucrats in which we in Congress are not having a say. What I am asking for today is that Congress vote approval or disapproval of these radical, extremist regulations, these job-killing regulations that are coming down the pike.

If we look at jobs and look at what will happen to jobs, we will see that these regulations--simply this regulation alone--could cost as much as 50,000 jobs. Indirectly, the people who work for them who would be losing their jobs. As much as 250,000 indirect jobs could be lost.

We do need to ask the important question: Are the existing regulations working or do we need to make the regulations more strict? This is a balancing act. On the one hand we have our environment, which we all care about. No matter what the other side will say, Republicans do believe in clean air and clean water. But we also believe in jobs. It is a balancing act in our country and in all of our communities to try to have both jobs and a clean environment. But we have to look at the facts. We cannot become hysterical and say the other side is for pollution. That is the kind of stuff we are hearing.

We are all for clean air, we are all for clean water, and we are all--or we should all be for jobs. My concern is that the President has allowed radicals to take over the administration. He has allowed environmental extremists to take over policy. As a consequence, we are losing jobs.

It is important to note that people think they will plug their electric cars into the wall and that has nothing to do with coal. Fifty percent of our electricity comes from coal. Does that mean it is perfect? No. But we have to look at the emissions from coal-fired utilities. The emissions have been declining decade after decade.

While coal-fired power has nearly doubled in the last several decades--we are having to produce more electricity from coal in the last several decades--emissions have declined 60 percent. We are doing a good job with the current rules. Let's not kill off industry. Let's not kill off jobs. Let's not put our citizens at risk during the height of the summer and the height of a heat wave of not having electricity or during the height of cold waves in the winter of not having electricity to heat their homes.

The alarmists, such as Al Gore and others, would have us believe everything is worse and the world is on the edge of some sort of cataclysm. If we allow them to control our debate, if we do not talk reasonably and rationally about the facts, if we do not look at the statistics of what has been occurring to control emissions, we are not going to get anywhere. I am asking we base our discussion on rational facts and not on emissions.

To give an idea of where some of these extremists are coming from, there is one of them who is a prominent extremist in this debate. She has called for a planetary law, whatever that is. She wants a planetary law of one child per family because she is worried about the carbon footprint of the worst polluters in the whole world.

But who do we think the worst polluters in the world are? Humans, for breathing. She says we have far too many breathers on the planet and the way we reduce breathers on the planet is we will have one child per family mandated worldwide. We know how China does that.

I don't think we can let the debate get out of control. Today's debate is about overreach. I would like to give an example. Think about what cities looked like in 1900. We have a picture of Pittsburgh, where I was born, in 1905, and then a picture of Pittsburgh today. You may not be able to see the picture from the distance, but we can get an idea.

Throughout Pittsburgh it was smog and pollution. It was heavy. They say at noon on a day in Pittsburgh you could go out and your white shirt would become black. They say at noon in Pittsburgh the street lanterns were on because you could not see through the smog and the smoke.

Here is Pittsburgh today. We are not arguing for no rules. The rules we have in place have been working. What we are arguing is not to let the rules become so overzealous, so onerous, that we kill jobs and we kill industry.

We want a clean environment and jobs. We have to have a balanced approach, and we cannot let hysteria and environmental extremism take over our country. The West led the industrial revolution. Life expectancy has doubled since the discovery of electricity. Childhood infectious mortality has become one-hundredth of what it was before electricity. For all the advances of civilization, there are advantages and there are disadvantages. As we have advanced from an industrial society, there have been problems, but we have been ironing out those problems for 100 years now. We are doing a good job at that, and we should not allow the regulations to become so onerous that we begin to lose jobs.

One of the other things people argue about and one of the big health concerns they have with pollution is with regard to asthma. The interesting thing is, if we look at all the statistics on all the emissions from our powerplants, all these declining lines are emissions. Emissions have been going down decade upon decade. The incidence of asthma has been rising. If we were looking at this chart, we would say maybe emissions declining is inversely proportional to asthma. The other argument could be maybe they

are not related at all, but they definitely are not proportional. We are not seeing rising incidents of asthma because we are having increased pollution. We have decreased pollution and rising incidents of asthma. Either they are inversely proportional or not related at all.

This is an important point because what comes out of the hysteria of the environmental extremists is--we will hear people stand and say half a million people are going to die if this goes through. The Vice President recently said Republicans, because they didn't vote for his jobs plan, were for murder and rape. The ridiculousness of these statistics that are trotted out as truth should be spurned. We should think about things calmly and rationally and decide: Can we have clean air and jobs? When we hear these statistics, let's be very careful not to get carried away.

Joel Schwartz has written about asthma and the environment and pollution and he notes that: As air pollution declines, the asthma prevalence continues to rise. One possible conclusion is that air pollution is not a cause of asthma or not even related. Every pollutant we measure has been dropping for decades pretty much everywhere while asthma prevalence has been rising pretty much everywhere.

The other side will say, but the American Lung Association says pollution is making asthma worse. You know what. The EPA actually gave the American Lung Association $5 million, so I think their objectivity has been somewhat tainted.

If we look at asthma incidence and we say: Where is asthma the worst, interestingly, asthma is worse in the countries that have the lowest incidence of pollution and asthma is actually lowest in the countries that have the highest evidence of pollution.

As we look through these statistics, we need to be concerned about the costs of these new regulations. We need to be concerned about having balance between job creation and job-killing regulations. I am afraid what happened is we have opened the White House and this administration to environmental extremists, the kind of people who say: The polar bears are drowning. The whole thing on the polar bears drowning was based on the sighting of two polar bears on an iceberg and they all of a sudden maintain this. Once we start counting the polar bears, apparently they are not in decline.

So the statistics and hysteria over whether within 50 years the Statue of Liberty will be underwater, this is the kind of hysteria we don't want to drive policy. It is the kind of hysteria that when our brother-in-law is out of work and when 2 million new people are out of work since this administration came into power, we need to be concerned about regulatory overreach.

Another issue we are concerned about is what will happen with these new regulations with electricity rates. We have a map that shows across the United States what will happen. When we think about our electricity rates going up and the expense to this, think about who gets hit worse, the working class and senior citizens on fixed incomes. They are the ones who will suffer from rising electricity rates. It is the person who depends only on their Social Security check and has no other means of supporting themselves and is trying to pay for their electricity.

In some regions, electricity could go up almost 20 percent with this series of regulations this administration is proposing. This is throughout the country. It is more in some areas than others, but it will go up dramatically, and that is the danger of allowing these new regulations--what will happen to electric rates and will poor people in the winter or heat of the summer be able to afford their electricity? The cost of these regulations is real. The cost of these regulations will be passed on to the consumer and there are significant dangers of there being periods of times in large cities where there is not enough electricity to go around and the electrical grid is overwhelmed.

As we go forward and as we begin to hear some of the hysteria that will occur from the other side, be aware that what we are arguing for is not the elimination of regulations. We are arguing for continuing the existing regulations, with the two emissions we are talking about have declined significantly over decades. Sulfur dioxide has declined over 70 percent over the last three decades. Nitrous oxide has declined over 50 percent over the last several decades. So the question is, if we are doing an adequate job, if we are doing a good job, if emissions are going down, why would we want to impose new rules that will cause loss of jobs and will cause an increase in rate of electrical costs?

If one is cynical, one of the reasons might be because the President wants to reward some of his campaign contributors; for example, Solyndra. The owners of Solyndra, which makes solar panels--or did. They have now gone bankrupt after they ate up $500 million worth of our money. Perhaps this is more of a political argument that he doesn't like certain industry but he likes other industry. So he is willing to spend our money, $500 million worth, on one company.

Solyndra went bankrupt recently, and $500 million is still a considerable amount of money. I will put that in perspective. In Kentucky, we get over about $420 million to pave our roads annually out of the gas tax that we pay. There are 35 States that get about the same amount, somewhere under $500 million. Yet the President saw fit-- because he has been consumed with this environmental extremism--to give $500 million. That is more than 35 States get for their highway funds. He saw fit to take that money and give it to one political contributor because he has decided he wants more expensive electricity. He wants electricity that comes and is produced by people who have been his campaign contributors.

As we look at adding these new regulations, these need to be put in context. We need to look at and seriously think about whether we want our country to be taken over by environmental extremists, whether we want or care about can we have a clean environment and jobs. I think we can have both. I think we can have clean air, clean water, and jobs, but it will require a balanced approach. My fear is, if these regulations go forward, the balance will become imbalanced, that there will be job-killing regulations that cause electrical rates to go up and cause us to have significantly more economic problems than we are already in.

At this time, I call on my colleagues to consider supporting this resolution, which will be a disapproval of these new and onerous regulations, and I reserve the remainder of my time.

I yield the floor.

Senator, I would be happy to answer that question.

Mr. President, I rise in support of clean air, clean water, electricity, and jobs.

Interestingly, the other side hasn't read the EPA v. North Carolina opinion that says the regulations were not overturned. We are arguing for keeping in the current regulations. We are just arguing that we not be overzealous and that we not add $2 billion in new regulations on top of the current regulations.

We have $2 trillion worth of regulations heaped on our economy, 14 million people out of work--2 million new people out of work since this President came into power. We cannot allow this administration to continue with its job-killing regulations.

We can have a clean environment and we can have jobs. We are arguing for the existing regulations. We are arguing against placing additional burdens. We are arguing for the existing regulations. They don't seem to get it, so they make up all these numbers. All of their numbers are completely fictitious because they don't account for the current regulations that would still be in place if we don't increase these regulations.

This is about whether we can have a balanced approach in our society, whether we can have a clean environment and have jobs. What I am arguing for here is some reasonableness.

Madam President, there are two issues I would like to touch upon this afternoon which I think are significantly important to the people of our country.

On Sunday, 2 days ago, I held a town meeting in Montpelier, VT, on the issue of saving the Postal Service. Frankly, I was stunned by the number of people who came. As you know, Vermont is not the largest State in the Nation, and yet we had about 350 people crowding into the cafeteria at Montpelier High School to say very clearly that they do not want to see the Postal Service dismembered. They do not want to see policies develop that will create a death spiral for the post offices of America.

We heard a lot of testimony from many people, and the bottom line is that everybody in that room thought it

was terribly wrong that in the midst of a recession the post office is talking about cutting 120,000 good-paying jobs in our country. It didn't make sense to anybody in that room.

I find it ironic that at a moment when, appropriately enough--and I strongly support the effort--we are talking about creating jobs for veterans who are coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, with high unemployment rates, many of the people who work in the post office are, in fact, veterans. On one hand, we are trying to create jobs for veterans; on the other hand, if the Postal Service does what it wants, we may end up losing 120,000 jobs, including many veterans.

I wanted to touch on some of the important issues that I think we have to deal with regarding the Postal Service. I want to just go over a letter that Senators Leahy, Gillibrand, Wyden, and myself sent to the chairpeople and ranking members of the Committee on Homeland Security and the subcommittee as well; that is, Senators Lieberman, Collins, Carper, and Scott Brown. These are the points we made in the letter. These are points that will be incorporated into legislation that I will be introducing this week--legislation that I think is commonsense legislation, legislation that will help us create a business model so the Postal Service can be successful, legislation that will save 120,000 jobs.

This is what we wrote in the letter to the Homeland Security Committee. A lot of people don't know this. They say correctly that the Postal Service is having problems because we are in a digital age, and first class mail is going down because people are e-mailing. That is true.

Second, we are in the midst of a recession and many businesses are facing problems. But the most important financial problems facing the post office today are not those issues; they are the issues of accounting approaches that have done great disservice to the Postal Service.

The U.S. Postal Service uniquely has been forced to prefund 75 years' worth of future retiree health benefits in just 10 years. There is no other agency of government that comes close to that onerous requirement, nor do we believe there are any companies in the private sector that have been asked to do that. We are asking the Postal Service to come up with a huge amount of money and put it into a fund in a way that no other agency of government--and we think no other private company--has been forced to do.

This mandate costs the Postal Service between $5.4 billion and $5.8 billion per year, and it accounts for 100 percent of the Postal Service's $20 billion debt. Without that onerous requirement, the USPS would still have significant borrowing authority with the U.S. Treasury to ride out the tough economic times we are seeing in the recession.

Furthermore, it is not only future retiree health benefits they are being asked to come up with and fund, but the USPS needs to recoup the overpayments it has made to the CSRS and FERS, the Federal retirement system. According to studies by the Hay Group and the Segal Company, USPS has overpaid the CSRS by between $50 billion and $75 billion. If we look at those two issues, if we can deal with those issues and treat the Postal Service fairly, we will have gone a very long way toward addressing the immediate financial crisis the Postal Service is facing.

Second, what we want to be very careful about as we develop business models for the future is to not start cutting, cutting, cutting, and creating a Postal Service that will no longer have customer support and lay the groundwork for literally a death spiral and the destruction and demise of the Postal Service in years to come.

I come from a rural State. Post Offices are extremely important to the people of small towns above and beyond getting mail. They become, in a sense, in some ways, the identifying feature of a small town. It is where people come together and talk. It is very important, in my mind, that we not start cutting pell-mell hundreds and hundreds of small post offices in rural America. I think the legislation we will be offering this week addresses that problem in a sensible and reasonable way.

Second of all, the Postal Service can never be competitive if when you drop a letter into a postal box it takes 5 days for that letter to get to its destination. One of the ideas that the Postal Service is talking about is making very significant cuts in what they call processing centers. That is where the mail is gathered and forwarded. If we cut those centers--in my State, we have two that are on the line, Essex Junction and Wright River Junction. If we cut those and other processing centers all over the country, what will happen is that when we drop that letter into a mailbox, it could take up to 5 days for that letter to reach its destination. When we have that poor service, people are simply going to stop using the post office, and that continues the death spiral. People are not going to want to use the service.

Thirdly, and in the same vein, the Postal Service is now talking about cutting Saturday delivery. Again, that means there are a whole lot of folks who get prescription drugs on Saturday, and a whole lot of people who get a magazine or newspapers on Saturday--if we cut that back, people are going to say: No, I don't want to deal with the post office anymore. It is not worth it.

So it seems to me the choice we have is to do what the Postal Service is now talking about; that is, cut and eliminate rural post offices, end Saturday mail delivery, cut and eliminate significant numbers of processing centers, which will slow down the delivery of mail--that is one approach--and lay off, by the way, some 120,000 American workers, including many veterans. That is a very bad idea.

The other approach is to come up with a business model that recognizes that we are in the 21st century; that the post office has to evolve and change and give the post office the freedom to compete in a way that addresses the needs of its customers. I will give an example.

The Presiding Officer comes from a rural State, as I do. A lot of people in our States want to get fishing licenses or hunting licenses. If they walked into a post office in rural New Hampshire or rural Vermont and said: Hey, can I fill out an application to get a fishing or hunting license, the post office would say they we don't do that, they are not permitted to do that.

If an individual literally wants to walk into a post office--and postmasters tell me this happens every day--and say: I have a letter, and I want it notarized, they may be a notary public, but they are not allowed by law to notarize that.

The issue of the digital revolution is obviously impacting post offices not only in the United States but around the world. Other countries are looking at these challenges in a way that we are not. I will give one more example.

For a lot of reasons--legal and otherwise--there are people who would like to see a document delivered to somebody in writing and not simply in e-mail. There are post offices now in other countries where one can send an e-mail, say, from Vermont to California, it gets printed, and on the same day that document gets delivered to a business or a home. The post office in America is not allowed to do that. So by law our post office is restricted from entering the 21st century.

If somebody walks into a post office now and says they want to print up 10 copies of a document, so where is the copying machine, the postmaster would say they don't have one, that they are not allowed to have a copy machine.

There are a lot of ideas out there that people are talking about as to how the Postal Service can address the needs of customers in the 21st century.

Last, but not least, on this issue, one of the people at the town meeting on Sunday got up and said: I want to say this. In our town, we know our letter carrier very well. Our letter carrier noticed that mail remained in the mail box of an elderly person, and the mailman got on the phone and called the police department because he suspected that something was wrong.

It turns out that something was wrong and that person's life was saved. I expect that happens all over this country. We have hundreds of thousands of letter carriers who know people, interact with people. They do play and can more so play an important role in providing services.

Bottom line, Madam President, I think it is a bad idea in the midst of a

recession to slash 120,000 jobs, including jobs of many of our veterans. Second, I do believe if we use our brains and entrepreneurial spirit, we can create a post office that is very relevant and can be profitable in the 21st century.

We will be introducing legislation addressing all of these issues, and I hope very much that my colleagues will cosponsor that legislation.

Tax Fairness

Madam President, there is another issue I want to talk about, and that is the work of the supercommittee. This country has a recordbreaking deficit. It has a $14-plus trillion national debt, and I think all of the American people--or virtually all--want to see the supercommittee come up with a proposal which makes sense and which helps us address our deficit crisis. My suggestion to the supercommittee is that they, in fact, can do that by simply doing what the American people want them to do.

I have heard some of the ideas out there, where members of the supercommittee are talking about cutting Social Security, which has not contributed one nickel to our deficit and has a $2\1/2\ trillion surplus, and another idea being that we have to cut Medicare and Medicaid. Well, we have 50 million people without any health insurance. I don't think it is a brilliant idea to throw more and more people off health insurance. So I think those are bad ideas, and every single poll I have seen tells me the American people agree those are dumb ideas.

Meanwhile, I have seen and talked to a whole lot of people who are asking me this question: How is it, when the wealthiest people in this country are becoming much wealthier, when the effective tax rates of the top 2 percent are the lowest in decades, that we are not asking those people who are doing phenomenally well to start paying their fair share of taxes?

This is not just a progressive idea and it is not just a Democratic idea. The polls suggest that all across the political spectrum, the American people are saying: Yes, it is right and appropriate that the wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share of taxes.

I will just mention an ABC News-Washington Post October 5, 2011, poll reflecting that 75 percent of Independents support raising taxes on millionaires. In that same poll, 57 percent of Republicans support raising taxes on millionaires. In that same poll, 55 percent of tea party supporters--supposedly the extreme rightwing who want to abolish Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid, which turns out not to be the case at all--agree with raising taxes on millionaires. According to a June 2011 Washington Post poll, 72 percent of Americans support raising taxes on incomes over $250,000.

So I think we know what the American people want. They do not want, in poll after poll, to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because they know how vitally important those programs are to the well- being of tens of millions of Americans. For example, according to a February 2011 NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll, 77 percent of Americans are opposed to cutting Social Security to reduce the deficit.

So where are we as a country? We are pretty united. We are in agreement. What the American people are saying is that the rich are getting richer, their effective real tax rates have gone down, and they have to pay more in taxes to help us through deficit reduction and to create jobs.

The American people also understand there are huge corporate loopholes out there, with oil companies making money hand over fist and getting huge tax breaks and Wall Street getting huge tax breaks. We lose $100 billion a year because large companies and the wealthy put their money into tax havens in the Cayman Islands, in Bermuda, and in Panama. The people of this country know that is wrong.

I hope very much that the supercommittee will do nothing more than listen to the American people. That is all. If they do that, they will do the right thing. They will not suggest that we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, but they will suggest that the wealthiest people in this country start paying their fair share of taxes. They will recommend that we do away with these outrageous loopholes large profitable corporations enjoy. If they do that, we will, in fact, come up with an agreement that will help us reduce the deficit, and we will win the support of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.

With that, Madam President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am pleased to support Senator Paul's work to avail himself of and make use of the Congressional Review Act which establishes a process for Congress to review and nullify unwarranted Federal regulations.

The Congressional Review Act process is rarely used--only successfully on one other occasion since it was created in 1996--but it is a legitimate process, and it is of increasing importance today. This is an opportunity for Members of Congress, who are concerned that regulations are taking over the country, to try to see some of those unwarranted regulations pulled back. It is an opportunity for people to prove they mean what they say when they say that.

The Heritage Foundation published a chart identifying the ``Obama Regulation Tsunami.'' Heritage identified 144 new regulations that were pending in 2011--this year. All of those were expected to cost more than $100 million--all of them. In 2006, there were 69 such regulations pending. The average number of rules over $100 million pending during 2001 through 2006 was about 72. Now, during this administration, the average number is not 72; it is about 130. That is an 80-percent increase in the number of pending regulations with costs over $100 million. So this is a tsunami of costly regulations falling on our economy.

Senator Paul's resolution seeks to nullify just one of the EPA rules aimed at reducing the use of affordable coal-fired powerplants in 27 specific States, including my State of Alabama.

The rule will increase power bills for people and businesses. There is a range of other new EPA rules that will raise the price of electricity in addition to that rule. This increases the cost of doing business, and it makes our businesses less competitive and results in job losses.

Higher energy costs make American businesses less competitive and less able to create jobs and more likely to invest in other countries than in this country. In an EPW hearing--the Environment and Public Works Committee--last month, we heard testimony that over 180,000 jobs will be lost each year--each year, 180,000 jobs--from 2012 through 2020 as a result of just 4 EPA rules that impact the electric utility sector--just the electric utility sector. One of those four rules is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule that Senator Paul's resolution addresses. This is net jobs lost. The evaluation takes into account alleged job gains from the four rules.

Together, the four rules would result in $21 billion in annual compliance costs and raise residential energy prices by 12 percent in Alabama and even more in other States. A 12-percent increase in residential energy costs is significant. These are working people. If your bill is $150 a month, it is now

going to be $168 a month. If it is a $200 bill, it is going to be $224 a month. That is real money and for gaining not one thing that adds to the productivity of a business or a residence. It is a really significant cost.

Do not think it does not fall on people. We have gotten our mind set in Washington that we can impose a rule and it has costs on businesses but it does not cost us. But in truth, it is the equivalent of a tax. For example, if the government wanted to clean up the air, we could tax the American people, use that money to go to all the powerplants, add extra costly techniques to it, and clean up the air that way. That would be a tax. We would have to defend that to the American people. We would have to justify that this cost we have extracted from them through increased taxes was worth the benefit. But we can wash our hands of it, the way we do business today. We simply pass a law that mandates that these businesses do that, and we pretend it does not impose costs. But the experts say these rules will result in a 12- percent increase in utility rates in Alabama alone. Those are my people--working-class people, middle-class people, poor people who have to have electricity.

An analysis of all the new EPA rules impacting the electric utility sector is even more astounding. Southern Company, which operates in the Southeast, estimates that the capital costs of complying with the full range of proposed EPA rules for coal-fired electric generation would be between $12 billion and $15 billion. Costs for Alabama Power, which provides electric power for much of our State, are estimated to be between $5 billion and $7 billion. Alabama's general fund budget, not counting education, is $2 billion. This adds to one power company $5 billion to $7 billion in costs. The President and Senate Democrats like to talk about raising taxes on the rich, but their regulations are, in effect, a huge tax increase on everyone, poor and rich alike, in the form of higher energy prices and fewer job opportunities. With unemployment at 9 percent, we need to ask ourselves, Can we afford this kind of increase now?

Nucor Steel pointed out in recent testimony that a 1 cent per kilowatt hour increase in the electricity they buy to make steel would add $120 million in costs to their company. That was the testimony they gave a few weeks ago at an EPW hearing.

But let's talk for a moment about the specific rule Senator Paul's resolution would nullify. The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule mandates that 27 States reduce their sulfur dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2012 and nitrogen oxide, NOX, emissions by 50 percent by 2014. Remember, we already brought down emissions of NOX and sulfur dioxide significantly. Our air is cleaner in virtually every city in America than it was just a few years ago and much cleaner than it was 20 or 30 years ago. We can be thankful that Congress mandated that. And there certainly were objections raised at that time. It did impose costs, as said, but it also has helped clean our air. That is a fact. But I would just say this to you: The lower hanging fruit has already been achieved. America's electric utility industry is operating more efficiently and more effectively today than ever. But a 50-percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2014? An additional 20-percent reduction of sulfur dioxide by next year? Utilities will be forced to either install expensive technologies such as scrubbers or shut down their units.

This rule, in combination with other new EPA rules, will be the nail in the coffin for a lot of coal-fired powerplants. They will just close. It will also close coal mines where we produce American energy-- not imported energy, American energy. In Texas, one of the State's largest power producers, Luminant, has said the rule would result in 500 job losses due to the closing of units at one of its coal-fired plants and the closing of three nearby coal mines.

There are serious concerns about the new Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Over 70 parties have challenged it in Federal court, including Alabama's attorney general, Luther Strange, a fine attorney general who works hard every day for the people of Alabama. So have his colleagues in Kansas, Texas, Nebraska, Florida, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Michigan. Many labor unions are opposing the rule. They know it will hurt jobs.

Before concluding, let me say this: EPA is too often using scare tactics and statistics to push its regulatory agenda. I think that is dangerous. One reason we have seen such a surge in EPA regulations is because in 1 year they got a 35-percent increase in their budget--more than virtually any other agency in Washington.

EPA claims their Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, for example, is necessary to prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths per year--34,000. EPA is actually claiming that without this rule, 34,000 people would die each year. But EPA's basis for this assertion is fundamentally flawed.

First, EPA assumes in its baseline that existing rules are not in place to protect public health. That is absolutely not true. The Bush administration issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule that requires reductions in the same emissions targeted by this new rule. I am told sulfur dioxide emissions are already down more than 40 percent over the last decade. The same is true for NOX emissions. This new Cross-State Rule would add even more layers of requirements on top of existing protections and rules, but EPA does not acknowledge that when they do their analysis of the casualties they find. That is the first way they overstate the benefits.

Second, EPA assumes in its baseline that 320,000 deaths per year in the United States are attributed to particulate matter pollution from sources like powerplants. That would be more than 10 percent of all deaths in the United States in a year. Are we to believe that 10 percent of all U.S. deaths are attributable to pollution from powerplants? We have taken extensive testimony in the EPW Committee on this topic, and it is clear that EPA is playing fast and loose, and they are manipulating data, it seems to me pretty clearly. EPA is overstating the benefits of their rules.

Third, EPA does not seem concerned about establishing any direct cause-and-effect relationship; they just rely on statistical relationships. A simple statistical correlation alone does not support a causal connection. For instance, a statistical correlation between ice cream sales and heatstroke does not mean there is a causal connection between them. On hot days, more ice cream is consumed. More people have heatstrokes on hot days. That does not mean there is a cause-and-effect relationship between the two.

So let me conclude by saying this: This administration is overregulating our economy. It is raising the price of energy. These costs and regulations are costing us jobs.

They are using scare tactics to justify their rules with dubious statistics. I know my colleagues will say these statistics are accurate, but I do not believe that these statistics that are coming out of EPA, our government environment and protection agency--the agency we depend on for honesty and integrity--can be defended as accurate. They are exaggerated, and it will be shown sooner or later that is a fact.

I know we want to have cleaner air. We are on a path to having cleaner air. We have been reducing NOX and SOX and particulates for years. We can continue to do that. But to talk about a 50-percent reduction in NOX by 2014 and a 20-percent reduction in SOX by next year--these are huge changes. After the low-hanging fruit has already been achieved, I do not believe that is justified, and I do not believe it should be pressed down on the brow of an economy that is struggling mightily to get off the mat and begin to grow again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. ALEXANDER addressed the Chair.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for 30 seconds?

Senator Boxer has done a great job of moving the legislation in committee. I have enjoyed her leadership in committee and the collegial way she has conducted the committee.

I will say to Senator Boxer that the 320,000 number is not correct. EPA should not be using it. We will challenge that. I intend to look at that more, and if they are wrong, I will expect them to acknowledge they are wrong. I believe they are wrong.

I yield the floor.