[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 33 (Monday, March 7, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1313-S1315]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ENERGY REGULATIONS

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to speak out against what I 
consider to be a regulatory assault on our Nation's energy sector. That 
is pretty strong language, but I intend it to be.
  I listed a number of these proposed regulations in a letter I sent 
earlier today to President Obama. I ask unanimous consent to have this 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                    Washington, DC, March 7, 2011.
     President Barack Obama,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Obama: I write you today to express my 
     sincere appreciation for your recently implemented Executive 
     Order mandating that all federal agencies review and revoke 
     any rules or regulations that place unreasonable burdens on 
     our nation's business community. In light of our current 
     economic crisis, establishing a regulatory environment that 
     promotes growth and job creation should be the number one 
     priority for this Congress and Administration.
       Many people today believe no agency over the past few years 
     has had more of a negative impact on business growth and 
     regulatory certainty than the Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA). Since fiscal year 2010, ten new regulations 
     promulgated by the EPA have accounted for over 23 billion 
     dollars in new costs to the American taxpayer. As your 
     Administration reviews both proposed and promulgated 
     regulations, please consider the following five regulations 
     and the negative economic impact their full implementation 
     will have on our nation:
       EPA's proposal to amend the current primary 8 hour ozone 
     standard to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. The EPA 
     itself has estimated that this new regulation would cost 
     between 19 and 90 billion dollars to fully implement, while 
     providing no rationale as to what new scientific data 
     justifies updating a standard set as recently as 2008.
       The EPA and National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration's decision to mandate greater fuel economy and 
     emissions standards for all passenger vehicles and light-duty 
     trucks. Recent analysis has estimated this new regulation 
     will cost the already struggling automobile industry upwards 
     of 10.8 billion dollars to comply, and consumers up to 985 
     dollars per vehicle in higher purchase prices.
       The EPA's regulation restricting green house gas emissions 
     from stationary sources. While this regulation currently only 
     affects those stationary sources emitting 75,000 or more tons 
     of carbon per year, future implementations of this rule could 
     negatively impact millions of small businesses and community 
     organizations with costs of over 75 billion dollars a year.
       The EPA's recently promulgated Reciprocating Internal 
     Combustion Engines (RICE) regulation that requires operators 
     of current diesel or dual fuel engines (those operating on a 
     mix of diesel fuel and natural gas) to install new oxidation 
     catalysts on existing engines. This regulation has already 
     had a profound impact on municipal electric utilities, rural 
     electric cooperatives and agricultural irrigators in Kansas. 
     Costing an estimated $60,000 to $100,000 per engine, this 
     regulation is particularly difficult for small rural Kansas 
     communities that may only operate these engines a few hours 
     every year for emergency situations or extreme weather 
     conditions.
       As EPA officials prepare to release a final ruling on 
     regulation of coal combustion byproducts (CCB), I highly 
     recommend avoiding any classification of this product as a 
     hazardous waste. Classification of this byproduct as a 
     hazardous waste will restrict further beneficial reuse of 
     CCBs and without any corresponding benefit to the 
     environment.
       Again, thank you for the opportunity to share my 
     recommendations on what rules and regulations pose serious 
     negative consequences to the growth of our nation. As the 
     112th Congress gets under way, I will continue to identify to 
     your administration regulations that handicap American 
     businesses and halt American job creation. It is my hope that 
     we can create a regulatory environment that provides American 
     businesses with the necessary tools to hire and thrive in 
     this global market.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Pat Roberts,
                                                     U.S. Senator.

  Mr. ROBERTS. We--myself, staff, others, a lot of people I have met 
with in Kansas, regardless what economic sector we are talking about, 
whether it is energy, which I wish to talk about today, whether it is 
agriculture, which we talked about last week, health care is coming, 
and then we are going to talk about the financial sector--we have 
talked about the President's initiative, his Executive order in which 
the President said rightly--and I applauded that statement that we have 
so many regulations pouring out of Washington and so many regulations 
on the books, we do not have a cost-benefit yardstick--that is my 
favorite term for it--to say: Does the cost exceed the benefit? Does it 
make sense?
  The President himself said there are many that are duplicative and 
very costly and basically are stupid. That is exactly what the 
President said. I said ``egregious.'' That is the Senate word. The 
President said ``stupid.'' I think everybody understands that. He 
issued an Executive order, and he said to all the Federal agencies: 
Please, take a look at the regulations that are on the books and all 
the regulations that are coming out of your agency and see if you can 
make sense out of it and try to separate out the ones that are 
duplicative, costly, and, yes, stupid and the ones that are not and we 
can make some progress. I applauded the President's effort.
  The problem is, it is an Executive order that has no teeth. There are 
three exemptions--and I will get into that in my prepared remarks, but 
basically the independent agencies are excluded. There are a bunch of 
them. There is language in the bill that says, if you are doing it for 
the public good, the Secretary can say: Oh, well, that does not apply 
to us. How many Secretaries around here--for that matter czars. I guess 
they are in the room. I don't know what they do. If there is a czar 
sitting there talking to schedule C appointees and says: Do you think 
our regulations serve the public good, of course, they think that. They 
would not have promulgated them or issued them or thought them up to 
begin with if they did not think it was for the public good. So they 
are exempt.
  Then, we have a wonderful paragraph that I defy anybody to 
understand. They can also use that in regard to dodging around the 
President's Executive order. The President issued an Executive order, 
said some very good things to the American public, but it does not have 
any teeth.
  I have a bill. We have 30 cosponsors. The bill says: Mr. President, 
you are right with your Executive order. We codify his order, but we 
take out the exemptions. What a day that would produce--or a year, for 
that matter--for all Federal agencies, if they truly had to adhere to 
the President's Executive order. I hope we get more cosponsors and we 
could actually consider it and actually pass it on the floor of the 
Senate.
  We have several areas of our economy that are affected in a most 
egregious way by all these regulations. I talked about agriculture last 
week. We are talking about energy today. Health care is coming, and the 
financial institutions will be coming after that.

[[Page S1314]]

  Even as the price of crude continues to climb above $100 this 
administration continues to promote domestic energy policies that are 
making it more expensive for Americans to put gas in their cars, heat 
their homes, power their businesses. Just yesterday in a townhall 
meeting in Johnson County in Kansas, I heard complaints about the 
rising gas prices and our dependence on foreign oil and the need to 
develop our own domestic resources--all those resources. But this vital 
goal is now extremely difficult on the administration's own policies, 
again affecting not only energy but agriculture and our financial 
institutions and health care. I call them the four horsemen of 
regulatory strangulation. That may be a little harsh, but I don't think 
it is.
  As I said, last week, I came to the floor and highlighted a multitude 
of new overly burdensome and, in many situations, absurd EPA 
regulations that will have a significant negative effect on the ability 
of our farmers and our ranchers to produce the food and the crops 
necessary to compete in a global market and to feed a troubled and 
hungry world. Take a look at the coverage in regard to Libya and the 
news blip we saw on television where somebody was shouting and 
protesting and one of our newspeople stuck a microphone in front of his 
face and said: Are you trying to promote democracy? He said: No, I just 
want a loaf of bread. I will say to you that a hungry nation is a 
nation that does not have any possibility of economic opportunity. 
Well, unfortunately, as we all know, the EPA's reach goes well beyond 
the agricultural industry. Its regulations are moving to make the 
energy we rely on every day more expensive to produce, and many times 
without providing any appreciable benefits to the environment. Nobody 
wants to do anything that would endanger the public health. But I think 
we can take a good look at some of these regulations in regards to any 
appreciable benefits to the environment and find they are few and far 
between.

  Since fiscal year 2010, 10 new regulations promulgated by the EPA 
have accounted for over $23 billion in new costs to the American 
taxpayer, costs which are even more painful for Americans as our Nation 
continues to struggle with an almost 9-percent unemployment rate. 
Unfortunately, with the number of proposed regulations currently before 
our domestic energy producers, if we do not take action--we meaning the 
Congress--2011 and beyond will be even costlier.
  For example, EPA has proposed to amend the current national ambient 
quality standards for ozone to a range of 60 to 70 parts per billion. 
This is a range so stringent that recent analysis estimates hundreds of 
thousands of jobs would be at risk because of the inability of cities 
and counties to meet these attainment levels.
  The EPA itself has estimated this new regulation would cost between 
$19 billion and $90 billion to fully implement. I am talking about the 
60 to 70 parts per billion standard. It provides no rationale as to 
what new scientific data justifies updating a standard set as recently 
as 2008.
  This proposed regulation is in addition to the recently enacted 
greenhouse gas regulations requiring application of the best available 
control technology. Who decides that? That is the Kansas Department of 
Health and Environment with the EPA looking over their shoulder, and it 
is the application of best available control technology for stationary 
sources of greenhouse gas emissions.
  This regulation currently only affects those stationary sources of 
energy emitting 75,000 or more tons of carbon per year and which are 
already subject to the prevention of significant deterioration--they 
call that PSD--permitting requirements for nongreenhouse gases--or 
GHGS.
  Future implementation of this rule could negatively impact millions 
of small businesses, farms, hospitals, and community organizations with 
costs of over $75 billion a year. So we are talking billions and 
billions and billions in regards to these regulations.
  According to the Affordable Power Alliance, a civil rights 
organization, by the year 2030, greenhouse gas regulations--trying to 
control them--specifically targeting our domestic energy producers will 
result in the loss of 2.5 million jobs--2.5 million jobs--and a 
reduction of household income of $1,200 a year.
  Keep in mind, these are impacts that will have the greatest negative 
impact on poor households, low-income households, that spend a greater 
percentage of their monthly income on utilities and groceries--
necessities made more expensive to produce and purchase with rising 
energy prices.
  In the area of energy recycling, EPA officials are preparing to 
release a final ruling on regulation of coal combustion byproducts--the 
acronym for which is CCBs--which I hope avoids any classification of 
this product as a hazardous waste. CCBs are, of course, an unavoidable 
residual of burning coal to create energy, which I wish to add is the 
most cost-effective form of energy available still, and is responsible 
for providing over 70 percent of the energy to my State's taxpayers--70 
percent. Classification of this byproduct as a hazardous waste will 
restrict further beneficial use of CCBs in a multitude of industries, 
including agriculture, Portland cement, home construction, and without 
providing definitive benefits to the environment.
  In my home State of Kansas, representatives speaking on behalf of a 
number of Kansas energy producers estimated costs to industry of over 
$300 billion over the next 5 years to comply with a multitude of 
proposed EPA regulations dealing with air, water, and CCB management. 
Three hundred billion dollars. That is unreasonable, and is probably 
the mildest thing I can say. These are real numbers that will 
doubtlessly drive up the cost of energy Kansans rely on to heat their 
homes and drive our Nation's agricultural industry.
  Unfortunately, the negative impacts resulting from the multitude of 
new, overly burdensome EPA regulations don't stop with agriculture and 
energy. Beyond affecting the way people power their homes and 
businesses, the administration has even moved to regulate what cars 
Americans can drive. This was made evident by the EPA and the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration's decision last year to begin 
mandating greater fuel economy and emissions standards for all 
passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks. Recent analysis has estimated 
this new regulation will cost the already struggling automobile 
industry upwards of $10.8 billion to comply, and consumers up to about 
$1,000 per vehicle in higher purchasing prices. They just pass the 
costs on. So if you want to buy a new pickup down the road, it will be 
$1,000 more.
  While EPA has garnered much of the attention in my State for its 
efforts to make energy more expensive, from a national perspective, the 
Department of the Interior shares similar responsibility for pursuing 
policies that not only make energy more expensive but also make our 
country more reliant on foreign, and oftentimes unfriendly, sources of 
energy. For example, under the current administration, the Department 
of the Interior has canceled 77 oil development leases in Utah that 
were located within a larger formation covering three States that the 
Bureau of Land Management has estimated contains around 800 billion 
barrels of oil, more than three times the proven reserves in Saudi 
Arabia.
  Why? Why would we revoke these leases? That question has to be asked 
and answered. We are speaking of 800 billion barrels of oil. No, they 
can't go do that. This, of course, is in addition to the gulf of Mexico 
deepwater drilling moratorium imposed last summer which has had a 
lasting negative effect on the gulf coast economy.
  The President said yes, you can go ahead and drill, but the safety 
regulations are such that a lot of companies that were drilling have 
left or are leaving. However, foreign competition is drilling in the 
same place. That doesn't make sense.
  Beyond the regulatory burdens, it is also essential we focus on 
removing redundant programs within the various Federal agencies. Listen 
up. Every upset taxpayer should know this and, more importantly, demand 
action from this Congress. Last month, the administration's own 
Government Accountability Office--the famous or infamous GAO--released 
a report highlighting hundreds of duplicative programs currently on the 
books that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars every year.

[[Page S1315]]

  You get into double digits when you are counting the number of 
programs all of us want to depend on and all of us think are important, 
but they are duplicative. They are doing the same thing. As I say, it 
is costing American taxpayers billions of dollars every year.
  While separate from regulatory oversight, this study further 
amplifies the importance that we take a serious look at our Federal 
agencies and put in place appropriate oversight, review, and revocation 
where needed.
  It is for these reasons that I believe Congress must move forward 
with solutions that remove overly burdensome regulations and create an 
environment that doesn't hinder energy production and use of those 
resources that make the most economic sense while still protecting, 
yes, our clean water, clean air, and do what we can in regards to 
CO2 emissions.
  Understanding this, last month, I, along with 30 other Senators, 
introduced the bill I was talking about--the Regulatory Responsibility 
for our Economy Act. The bill moves to codify and strengthen the 
President's January 18 Executive order that directs agencies within the 
administration to review, modify, streamline, expand or repeal those 
significant regulatory actions that are duplicative, unnecessarily 
overly burdensome, or would have significant economic impacts on 
Americans.
  Those are the President's words right there. I agree with them. I 
applaud the President for saying that. While I agree in principle with 
President Obama that we need to take a serious look at both current and 
proposed Federal regulations, I don't believe his Executive order 
actually does what it purports to do. There are too many loopholes and 
no teeth.
  Specifically, my bill moves to hold accountable independent agencies 
which are exempt under his Executive order, such as the FDIC, the SEC, 
and the EPA that are not covered under President Obama's Executive 
order. The EPA came up and said: We are doing the public good. Then 
they followed that crazy paragraph I will read in a minute and said: We 
are okay. We are not issuing any regulations that hurt anybody.
  I just attended the Commodity Classic, made up of all farm 
organizations, all commodity groups out in Great Bend, KS, and the No. 
1 issue: regulations. Why on Earth are you putting out all these 
regulations that are about to put us out of business? You go right down 
the line and any group, any association, any business all throughout 
America are saying: Pat, what are you doing strangling us with all 
these regulations? What are you guys doing? My response is: I am not a 
``you guys,'' I am an ``us guy,'' and I am trying to do something about 
it.
  Specifically, my bill moves to hold accountable these independent 
agencies. It also removes from the Executive order highly subjective 
language that directs each agency to use the best available techniques 
to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as 
accurately as possible, and--here comes the paragraph I defy you, Mr. 
President, and I defy any of our highly skilled and educated people on 
the dais, I defy this nice young lady taking down my words the best she 
can, or anybody listening to this to understand--each agency may 
consider and discuss qualitatively--this is the way they look at a 
regulation to determine whether they are going to issue that regulation 
or not--values that are difficult or impossible to quantify, including 
equity, human dignity, fairness, and distributive impacts.
  That statement is amorphous. It is synonymous with amorphous. I defy 
anybody to try to determine what that means, except what you want it to 
mean. So that statement now wins the gobbledygook award of the month. I 
think I am going to come down here every month and award a gobbledygook 
statement in the regulatory field that is about to drown us all as the 
gobbledygook statement of the month--and that sure hits it. It doesn't 
take a legislative scholar to understand that this language creates a 
loophole large enough to drive a grain truck through and renders the 
order meaningless. That is why passage of my regulation is so 
critically important.
  I invite my friends on both sides of the aisle to please sign on as a 
cosponsor of my legislation, realizing the immense opportunities it 
creates for meaningful review and possible revocation of regulations 
counter to our Nation's growth, along with the GAO report outlining 
specific duplication of Federal programs, a report that defies 
PowerPoints or charts--couldn't do it; a maze of too many programs 
trying to do the same thing. If we don't do this, we are going to cost 
the business community of America and all Americans billions of dollars 
and get nothing in return in regard to environmental benefits.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________