Tom Carper

What are your thoughts about this particular allocation process? And could we do something similar for other pollutants? And what about auctioning the allowances?

We didn't feel like it was appropriate for those allowances to be shifted over to the coal generators.

We think it is more cost-effective than doing these regulations piecemeal.

Well, good. Thank you. I think I understood that.

I am just struck by how far we have come, and really struck by how cost-effective this can be.

In the past, I have introduced legislation with others that has regulated mercury, including Senator Alexander, who has been a champion on this.

If the Acid Rain Program cannot be extended, what happens to the banked allowances from previous years?

Do you believe that EPA can rewrite rule on their own that continues the Acid Rain Program for sulfur dioxide?

I think we do all support the need for legislation and the need to support additional trading.

Senator Carper, your bill, the Clean Air Power Act, last year EPA did an analysis of the bill vintage 2005 that said its benefits would be $160 billion a year in 2020, and only at the cost of $9.5 billion at the same year.

We are going to do our best to make sure it does not get lost.

Trading makes a lot of sense with respect to nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, but not with the neurotoxin mercury.

There is absolutely no reason for such punitive cost burdens

The cap-and-trade program should continue to use the reasonable free allocation of allowances

This will help provide the legal continuity that the business community needs to actually invest the billions of dollars

Cap-and-trade and the Acid Rain Program have been an unqualified success, a stunning success

I have no idea what the cost-benefit analysis of that would be, but it has got to be off the charts.

We have each year, Ms. McCarthy I am told, 600,000 babies born whose moms have high levels of mercury.

In the States, do you have any idea what the average reduction requirements are?

Do you believe that legislation with targets and timetables for mercury, for nitrogen oxide, for sulfur dioxide, could give certainty for environmental reductions and business decisions?

I do believe it was a tremendous success.

The conservative Republicans who live around there are for clean air because they breathe the air, and they know tourists come there to see the Smokys, not to see smog.

So I think you have strong bipartisan support and interest from the Congress in a reasonable, effective CAIR rule.

I have also introduced legislation on limiting carbon for dealing with global warming, but we really don't know what to do with carbon yet.

I hope, and I would echo what Senator Voinovich said, and I will ask a couple of questions.