[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1922-S1927]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            SBIR/STTR REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011--Continued

  Mr. WEBB. Mr. President, I was originally going to call up a pending 
amendment, No. 215, the Rockefeller amendment. I am informed that 
amendment is at present the subject of some negotiation and a consent 
package. I do wish to speak briefly today in support of the amendment 
filed by Senator Rockefeller and on his behalf, since he is away from 
the Senate today attending the funeral of a close friend.
  Like Senator McConnell, I have expressed deep reservations about the 
consequences of unilateral regulation of greenhouse gases by the EPA. 
In my view, this will result in long and expensive regulatory processes 
that could lead to overly stringent and very costly controls on carbon 
dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This regulatory framework 
is so broad and potentially far-reaching that it could eventually touch 
nearly every facet of this Nation's economy, putting unnecessary 
burdens on industry and driving many businesses overseas through 
policies that have been implemented purely at the discretion of the 
executive branch and absent a clearly stated intent of the Congress.
  Our farms, factories, transportation systems, and power-generating 
capacity all would be subject to these new regulations. This 
unprecedented, sweeping authority over our economy at the hands of the 
EPA is at the heart of the concern expressed by Senator McConnell, and 
ultimately, whichever way one ends up voting on his amendment, that 
common concern defines this debate.
  It is not a new concern for me. When this administration declared in 
November of 2009 that the President would sign a politically binding 
agreement at the United Nations framework on climate change in 
Copenhagen, I strongly and publicly objected. I sent a letter to the 
President stating:

       Only specific legislation agreed upon in the Congress or a 
     treaty ratified by the Senate could actually create such a 
     commitment on behalf of our country.

  I have also expressed on several occasions my belief that this 
administration appears to be erecting new regulatory barriers to the 
safe and legal mining of coal resources in Virginia and other States. 
My consistent message to the EPA is that good intentions do not in and 
of themselves equal clear and unambiguous guidance from Congress. We 
can see this in the approach the EPA has taken or attempted to take on 
the regulation of coal ash, on regulating industrial and commercial 
boilers, on approving new levels of ethanol into gasoline, and, most 
importantly, its overreach to regulate greenhouse gases from stationary 
sources. I have repeatedly raised these issues with the administration 
and my colleagues in the Senate.
  In examining this issue, I have also reviewed carefully the Supreme 
Court's holding in Massachusetts v. EPA.
  My opposition to the EPA's present regulatory scheme with respect to 
carbon dioxide or stationary sources stems in part from my reading of 
this case. I am not convinced the Clean Air Act was ever intended to 
regulate or to classify as a dangerous pollutant something as basic and 
ubiquitous as carbon dioxide. I say that as one of the few Members of 
this body who are engineers.
  To quote one of the most influential Supreme Court Justices from the 
last century, Justice Cardozo:

       The legislation which has found expression in this code is 
     not canalized within the banks that keep it from overflowing.

  The case Justice Cardozo was commenting on dealt with a different 
issue but the constitutional precept still applies. Congress should 
never abdicate or transfer to others the essential legislative 
functions given to it and it alone by the Constitution.
  The sweeping actions the EPA proposes to undertake clearly overflow 
the appropriate regulatory banks established by Congress, with the 
potential to affect every aspect of the American economy. Such action 
represents a significant overreach by the executive branch.
  Notwithstanding these serious concerns with what I view as EPA's 
potentially unchecked regulation in a number of areas important to the 
economy, I do have concerns about the McConnell amendment for a number 
of reasons.
  First, the McConnell resolution would jeopardize the progress this 
administration has made in forging a consensus on motor vehicle fuel 
economy and emission standards. The Obama administration has brokered 
an agreement to establish one national program for fuel economy and 
greenhouse gas standards. This agreement means that our beleaguered 
automotive industry will not face a patchwork quilt of varying State 
and Federal emission standards. Significantly, this agreement is 
directly in line with the holding in Massachusetts v. EPA which dealt 
with motor vehicle emissions. In fact, it dealt with new car motor 
vehicle emissions.
  Both in the Clean Air Act and in subsequent legislation enacted by 
the Congress, there has been a far greater consensus on regulation of 
motor vehicle emissions than on stationary sources with respect to 
greenhouse gas emissions. It has been estimated that these new rules, 
which are to apply to vehicles of model years 2012 to 2016, would

[[Page S1923]]

save 1.8 billion barrels of oil and millions of dollars in consumer 
savings. That agreement, however, and the regulations that would 
effectuate it rest upon enforcement of the Clean Air Act, which would 
essentially be overturned by the McConnell amendment.
  We have before us a different but equally effective mechanism to 
ensure that Congress and not unelected Federal officials can formulate 
our policies on climate change and on energy legislation. The 
Rockefeller amendment, which I have cosponsored, would suspend EPA's 
regulation of greenhouse gases from stationary sources for 2 years. 
This approach would give Congress the time it needs to address 
legitimate concerns with climate change and yet would not disrupt or 
reverse the progress made on motor vehicle fuel and emission standards.
  The majority leader had previously assured me and Senator Rockefeller 
of his commitment to bring the Rockefeller amendment to the floor. I 
very much appreciate his stated intention to do so. I hope we will have 
the opportunity to vote on this measure within the next day or so.
  Finally, let me say that I share the hope of many Members of this 
body from both sides of the aisle that we can enact some form of energy 
legislation this year. I have consistently outlined key elements I 
would like to see in an energy package. I have introduced legislation, 
along with Senator Alexander, to encourage different forms of energy 
legislation that would in and of themselves help produce a cleaner 
environment and more energy independence. We should all be exploring 
those types of mechanisms that will, at the same time, incentivize 
factory owners, manufacturers, and consumers to become more energy 
efficient and to fund research and development for technologies that 
will enable the safe and clean use of our country's vast fossil fuels 
and other resources.

  The second thing I would say--just as a comment--since I was shown a 
letter earlier today from the Chamber of Commerce strongly suggesting 
the only viable alternative in this debate is the McConnell amendment, 
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter that was 
sent last September by the Chamber of Commerce and more than a dozen 
other business entities, associations in support of the Rockefeller 
amendment.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                               September 14, 2010.
     Hon. Daniel Inouye,
     Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thad Cochran,
     Vice Chairman, Senate Appropriations Committee, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman Cochran: Unless 
     Congress acts this Fall new Environmental Protection Agency 
     (EPA) rules regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under 
     the Clean Air Act will go into effect on January 2, 2011. The 
     rules impose a significant burden across the U.S. economy, 
     including the sectors that will create jobs and lead us in 
     our economic recovery. It is Congress' prerogative to enact a 
     national climate policy, not the EPA's. Fortunately, there 
     are opportunities for Congress to exercise its prerogative 
     prior to the end of the legislative session.
       We urge your strong support for measures to temporarily 
     restrict EPA's authority to implement the GHG rules affecting 
     stationary sources, and to give Congress the time necessary 
     to consider the appropriate regulatory approach for those 
     sources.
       According to EPA, as many as six million of America's 
     industrial facilities, power plants, hospitals, agricultural 
     and commercial establishments eventually will be subject to 
     these rules, at a considerable cost and burden on jobs, state 
     resources and the ability to move forward on a national 
     climate policy. State implementing agencies have no guidance 
     on issuing the required permits, the measures needed to 
     comply are not known, and both state implementing agencies 
     and covered commercial facilities will be left in a bind. 
     There is the very real prospect that investments by 
     businesses across the entire economy--the investments that 
     will drive economic recovery and job creation--will be 
     delayed, curtailed or, even worse, cancelled.
       The appropriations process can ensure that the potentially 
     damaging impacts of EPA's rules are postponed for a two or 
     three year period pending Congressional action. Indeed, the 
     approach would allow any restrictions on funding in a manner 
     that still allows EPA's rules on motor vehicles to continue 
     in effect unchanged. More importantly, the appropriations 
     process provides Congress an important oversight and 
     management tool that will inform the further development of a 
     national climate policy. Other approaches, such as a 
     codification of EPA's ``tailoring'' rule to ease the 
     potential burden on smaller businesses have been suggested. 
     Unfortunately, the vast majority of American businesses 
     affected by the GHG rules will not be protected by a simple 
     codification of EPA's rules.
       Representatives Nick Rahall and Rick Boucher and Senator 
     Jay Rockefeller have introduced legislation (the Stationary 
     Source Regulations Delay Act, H.R. 4753 and S. 3072, 
     respectively) to place a two year moratorium on the EPA's 
     actions to regulate GHGs from stationary sources.
       Senator Rockefeller has received a commitment from Majority 
     Leader Harry Reid to hold a vote on his bill in September. We 
     support the concept of a two-year postponement and urge your 
     strong support as an appropriate legislative measure is 
     developed and considered. Simply, a two-year moratorium will 
     prevent the negative economic impacts anticipated from the 
     EPA GHG rule.
       In short, American businesses, investment, and jobs need 
     your active support. We urge you to support efforts to 
     postpone EPA regulation of GHG emissions from all stationary 
     sources through targeted amendments to relevant 
     appropriations measures or legislation based on the Rahall/
     Boucher or Rockefeller bills.
           Sincerely,
         American Chemistry Council, American Farm Bureau 
           Federation, American Forest & Paper Association, 
           American Frozen Food Institute, American Petroleum 
           Institute, American Iron and Steel Institute, Ball Clay 
           Producers Association, CropLife America, International 
           Diatomite Producers Association, Industrial Minerals 
           Association--North America, Missouri Forest Products 
           Association, National Association of Chemical 
           Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, 
           National Association of Oilseed Processors, National 
           Association of Wholesaler-Distributors, National 
           Industrial Sand Association, National Lime Association, 
           National Mining Association, National Petrochemical & 
           Refiners Association, Society of Chemical Manufacturers 
           and Affiliates, The Aluminum Association, The 
           Fertilizer Institute, Treated Wood Council, U.S. 
           Chamber of Commerce.

  Mr. WEBB. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.


                           Amendment No. 183

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, let me say to my good friend 
from Virginia, I agree with everything he said up to the last 3 
minutes, because we have something that needs to be talked about. I 
would only make reference to the letter that has been entered into the 
Record that, yes, did make that statement, that if the choice is to do 
nothing at all or to have the Rockefeller amendment, it is better to 
delay something bad for 2 years. But that is not the choice.
  The choice is--and he has referred to it as the McConnell amendment; 
that happens to be the bill I introduced and is now offered as an 
amendment to the Small Business Act--and it is one that will actually 
resolve the problem.
  I think it is necessary to set the record straight as to what the two 
alternatives are. I call them covers. This is kind of a term that is 
used inside these Halls when someone is wanting to vote against 
something that people at home want and they give them something else to 
vote for so we can offer cover--something that normally is 
meaningless--such as these two cover votes.
  The cap-and-trade agenda--I think we all understand--is destroying 
jobs in America and certainly decreasing our domestic energy supply. As 
a consequence, the consumers are going to pay more for their gas, for 
their electric bills, in a tax on affordable energy. But it can be 
stopped. It can be stopped by the passage of the Energy Tax Prevention 
Act of 2011 or, as we are looking at it now, that same bill being 
encompassed as an amendment called amendment No. 183 to the Small 
Business Act.
  Let me go back, if I could, kind of in history to make sure people 
understand where we are today and how we got here. Many years ago, back 
in the 1990s, they came forward--and this was during the Clinton-Gore 
administration--with the Kyoto treaty. They went to Kyoto, Japan, and 
said: We want to join with all the other countries and we want to 
reduce emissions from CO2. This was a treaty you would sign 
on to and most of the European countries did and many others did.
  I might add now, many years later, none of them that signed on to it 
were able to accomplish any kind of reduction, meaningful reduction in 
emissions. But nonetheless, we had that.
  I can remember standing at this podium and saying back then that we 
are not going to ratify any agreement that

[[Page S1924]]

is made at Kyoto that does not affect the developing countries the same 
as the developed countries. In other words, if it is not going to cover 
China, Mexico, and different countries in Africa, then we do not want 
to be the only ones this affects because it is going to be a very 
punitive situation. Secondly, we were not going to ratify any kind of a 
treaty that was an economic hardship on our country. We successfully 
stopped it.
  Then, in 2003, they started introducing legislation that would do by 
legislation what the Kyoto treaty would have done, but it would only 
affect the United States of America. At that time, Republicans were the 
majority. I was the chairman of the committee that is called the 
Environment and Public Works Committee. We had the jurisdiction over 
this issue. So I almost unilaterally was able to stop this legislation 
from taking place. We had the same legislation that came up again in 
2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009, and it has been before us for votes now in 
the Senate seven different times. Each time we defeated it. I might 
add, we defeated it by a larger margin each time we defeated it.
  It is kind of interesting because I have had so many people say to 
me: Inhofe, what if you are wrong? What if CO2 is damaging 
to the environment? What if it causes some of these problems people say 
it does? Well, I have to say, the science has been mixed. The science 
has been cooked in many cases. The United Nations came up with the 
IPCC, which was the science that was used to base all these new 
programs on, and it has been pretty much scandalized in the climategate 
situation. But, nonetheless, that is something we do not need to talk 
about. The point is, we were able to stop any legislation.
  Why did we want to stop legislation that puts restrictions on 
CO2? Well, one reason is--and it came up very clearly, and I 
always give my appreciation to Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson is the Obama-
appointed Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I asked 
her the question some time ago in a public hearing, live on TV. I 
asked: If we were to pass any of these pieces of legislation--at that 
time I think it was the Waxman-Markey bill--would this have any 
meaningful reduction in terms of CO2 emissions in the world? 
The answer was, no, it would not because this would only apply to the 
United States of America. If we do it here, we will take all the 
financial hardship of doing it; however, as we lose our manufacturing 
base, they will go to other countries where there are less emission 
requirements. China is a good example. China's doors are open now to 
try to say: Come, we are cranking out three to four coal-fired 
generating plants in China every week. So, manufacturers, come here. We 
have the energy you need. So they were then able to do it.
  When the Obama administration came in, with a strong majority in both 
the House and the Senate, they said: All right, we will tell you what. 
Since you are not going to pass cap and trade, then we will do it 
through regulations.
  What would cap and trade do to America? Granted, by everyone's 
admission, it would not reduce emissions at all worldwide. So what 
would it cost? Well, the cost was put together back during the Kyoto 
treaty by the Wharton School at that time. Since then, MIT, CRA, many 
others have come in. The range is always between $300 and $400 billion 
a year.
  I am not as smart as a lot of guys around here, so when I hear about 
billions and trillions, I say: How does that affect people in my State 
of Oklahoma? So I have the math that I do. I say to the Presiding 
Officer, I take the total number of people and families in my State of 
Oklahoma who file a tax return, and then when they come up with 
something that is going to cost our Nation $300 to $400 billion, I do 
the math. What that would amount to for my average family in Oklahoma 
who files a tax return is $3,100 a year, and they do not get anything 
for it.
  Anyway, the President came in with the new majority, and he said: 
Well, if you are not going to pass this, we are going to go ahead and 
do it by regulation. We will have the Environmental Protection Agency 
do it by regulation.
  To do that, they had to have what is called an endangerment finding; 
that is, a finding that CO2 is an endangerment to health. 
The courts never said we have to regulate CO2. They said: If 
you want to, you can. That was the choice of this administration and of 
the Environmental Protection Agency.
  So I asked the question again at one of the hearings--this is of the 
same Administrator Jackson; this was a year ago December--I said: I 
have a feeling you are going to come up with an endangerment finding so 
you have justification for regulating CO2 the same as if we 
were passing legislation to do it. Her response was kind of a smile. I 
said: To have an endangerment finding, you have to base that on 
science. What science are you going to base it on? She said: Well, 
primarily, the IPCC. That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change. That is the United Nations. They are the ones that started all 
this fun stuff.
  With that, it was not more than 2 weeks later that the scandal broke 
with the recovery of some of the e-mails that were sent out by the IPCC 
that they had, in fact, cooked the science. Nonetheless, there are 
lawsuits that are pending right now and all that to try to stop the EPA 
from regulating CO2.
  They are doing other regulatory things right now. They are trying to 
do regional haze regulation. They are trying to do regulation on ozone, 
changing the standards, trying to do what they call boiler MACT, 
utility MACT, other regulations. But, nonetheless, this one we are 
talking about today is the regulation of greenhouse gases.
  This is what is happening right now. To keep them from doing it, I 
introduced a piece of legislation called the Energy Tax Prevention Act 
of 2011. My good friend over in the House of Representatives, Fred 
Upton, has been a friend of mine for many years. He is the chairman of 
the appropriate committee over there; the same as I am the ranking 
member of the appropriate committee here. So we introduced together the 
Upton-Inhofe legislation or, if you are over on this side, I call it 
the Inhofe-Upton legislation. That would take away the jurisdiction of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate greenhouse gases. If we 
take away the jurisdiction, they cannot do it. That is the ultimate 
solution. That is the moment of truth, as we are going to read in 
tomorrow morning's Wall Street Journal. So they are taking that up. 
They will pass it over there. But on a partisan basis over here, they 
will try to kill it.

  So what we have done is, Leader Mitch McConnell and I have offered an 
amendment that encompasses my bill, the Energy Tax Prevention Act I 
just referred to, as an amendment on the Small Business Act. That is 
scheduled for a vote tomorrow morning. I hope it does happen.
  The reason I am talking today--I have already covered this several 
times, and I am sure people are tired of hearing it--but they have 
cover votes that are coming up, and we know this is going to happen. 
But why is it this administration wants to do something that is going 
to drive the energy costs of America upward?
  This administration has said over and over again they do not want 
gas, they do not want oil, they do not want coal. And we cannot run 
this machine called America without oil, gas, and coal.
  There is a motivation here; that is, it has come from this 
administration that they want to replace fossil fuels--oil, gas, and 
coal--with what they call green energy. Someday that might happen. It 
will be long after I am gone, I am sure. But they might have the 
technology to run this country on what they call renewable energy. 
Right now, we are going to use as much as we can. We are for wind 
power, we are for Sun power, solar power, all the other options. But, 
nonetheless, we still have to have fossil fuels to run the country.
  Steven Chu, Secretary of Energy for the Obama administration, said:

       Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of 
     gasoline to the levels in Europe.

  That is $8 a gallon. This is the administration saying we want to 
increase the price of gasoline to be equal to what it is in Western 
Europe. So this is something that has been a policy of this 
administration for a long time. In fact, President Obama himself said 
that under the cap-and-trade plan--this is what they are trying to do

[[Page S1925]]

now--``electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.''
  The President had it right. The point of cap-and-trade regulation is 
to make us pay more for energy bills, and the Obama administration and 
EPA are here to make that happen. In a recent editorial, the Wall 
Street Journal calls the Energy Tax Prevention Act, my bill, ``one of 
the best proposals for growth and job creation to make it onto the 
Senate docket in years.''
  Why is that? It is because the EPA's regulations will raise energy 
prices and strangle economic growth. As the National Association of 
Manufacturers stated:

       At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from 
     the most severe recession since the 1930s, [EPA] regulations 
     . . . will establish disincentives for the long-term 
     investments necessary to grow jobs and expedite economic 
     recovery.

  That is the National Association of Manufacturers. The families, the 
workers, and the consumers are all going to feel the pain.
  In a study that Charles River Associates International did, they 
estimate that EPA's cap-and-trade regulations could increase wholesale 
electricity costs by 35 to 45 percent. What we are talking about is--
everyone understands--if they are able to do these regulations, the EPA 
doing what the legislature refused to do; that is, regulate the 
emissions of fossil fuels, it will increase electricity prices about 40 
percent.
  What do we get in return? I think we have already mentioned we do not 
get anything for this because it would drive our jobs elsewhere, and it 
would only affect the United States of America.
  The claims that the Energy Tax Prevention Act--that is the amendment 
we will be voting on tomorrow--would undermine health protections or 
fuel economy standards are disingenuous on their face. The amendment 
does not touch EPA's authority to regulate criteria or hazardous air 
pollutants. What is more, both emissions of CO2 and real 
pollution have been in steady decline. Yet instances of asthma have 
been on the increase. So as the emissions decline, the instances have 
actually increased. Carbon dioxide emissions do not cause asthma, 
either directly or indirectly, and they do not harm public health.
  The Energy Tax Prevention Act is not about asthma and public health, 
but it is about protecting jobs.
  By the way, there is a very well respected scientist by the name of 
Richard Lindzen from MIT, and he wrote a letter to me which I received 
a couple of days ago--well, it was actually a little bit longer than 
that.

       As to the impact of increasing CO2 on general 
     welfare, there is widespread agreement that modest warming 
     should improve welfare for the U.S. Under the circumstances, 
     we are in the bizarre situation of declaring something to be 
     a pollutant when the evidence suggests that it is beneficial.

  In other words--I hesitate saying this. I am the first one to admit I 
am not a scientist, but certainly Professor Lindzen is. He says, Here 
we are talking about reducing something that is not a problem certainly 
to health.
  Then the other thing having to do with the Highway--this was 
mentioned by the Senator from Virginia a few moments ago--that somehow 
this is going to impair our standards of lowering gas consumption. The 
amendment doesn't prohibit the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration from setting fuel economy standards. It stops the EPA 
from regulating carbon dioxide from tailpipes after 2016. So the 
regulation would have no effect on that whatsoever. That is not done by 
the EPA; that is done by the National Highway Safety Administration, 
called NHTSA.
  The vote comes down to a simple choice: Are you for jobs and 
affordable energy or President Obama's strategy of energy taxes and 
bureaucratic regulations? Of course, when you look at the things that 
are coming along--I mentioned when I started talking that there is 
something called ``cover,'' that if there is something out there that 
the people at home are clamoring for, that they want--in this case they 
want this amendment that will stop the EPA from regulating greenhouse 
gases--then if they can vote for something else that does nothing, they 
can say, Well, I voted for this. It is called cover.
  The Rockefeller vote would be nothing, except kicking the can down 
the road for 2 years, and in the meantime the regulation goes on.
  Under the Baucus amendment, this is something that is called the 
tailoring rule. It is a little more complicated because when you talk 
about the emissions that we are concerned with that the EPA would be 
regulating, they would be on any emissions that would affect all the 
farmers, the schoolhouses, and everybody else. Well, the Baucus 
amendment would exempt some of these smaller ones. However, if you 
listen to the Farm Bureau, which has been very helpful in this all 
along--I think I have their quotes here. Yes. Listen to this, the 
American Farm Bureau, a recent quote, just this year:

       Farmers and ranchers would still incur the higher costs of 
     compliance passed down from utilities, refiners and 
     fertilizer manufacturers that are directly regulated as of 
     January 2, 2011.

  So if the Baucus amendment passes, it is going to still be 
regulated--the refiners, the manufacturers--and that is going to be 
passed down and it is going to increase the cost of power and energy 
and that is why the Farm Bureau is so emphatic. In fact, I just left 
the Farm Bureau a couple of minutes ago before I came here, talking 
about this very subject.
  The manufacturers feel the same way. The Industrial Energy Consumers 
of America wrote the Baucus approach:

       does not solve the underlying problem that regulating 
     [greenhouse gases] under the Clean Air Act is very costly for 
     manufacturing, will impact global competitiveness and 
     encourage capital investment outside the United States.

  Why would that be? Because if China ends up with all the jobs, then 
they are the ones who would be getting the investment.
  The only way to stop the higher costs of compliance, which the Farm 
Bureau fears, is to pass the Energy Tax Prevention Act which is now 
Senate amendment No. 183.
  The contrast couldn't be starker. I was told that tomorrow morning we 
may see the moment of truth going on--and I think it is going to be in 
the Wall Street Journal--that people are going to realize there is only 
one way to stop this massive tax and regulation increase that will 
come. It won't be by the Rockefeller amendment and it won't be by the 
Baucus amendment. It will be by the Inhofe-McConnell amendment that 
hopefully will be voted on tomorrow and that will take out from the 
jurisdiction of the EPA the ability to regulate greenhouse gases. That 
is what we are hoping will happen, and I think when people realize it, 
they are not going to be fooled by some of these what I refer to as 
cover votes.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Missouri is recognized.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I wish to talk a little bit about the 
McConnell amendment that I think we will vote on on the floor of the 
Senate this week. This is the amendment that really clarifies whether 
Congress ever intended to give the Environmental Protection Agency the 
authority to regulate greenhouse gases. They have a finding that gives 
them that authority, but the people who were involved in passing that 
law initially say that wasn't the intention of the law; that if it is 
the intention of the law, the Congress should step up and clarify that.
  I think this amendment clearly expresses the view of the American 
people that the Congress should do its job, not leave it to the 
regulators to do the job. Senator McConnell has brought that amendment 
to the floor. It is an amendment that Senator Inhofe has worked on 
regarding this topic for a long time. Senator Barrasso has also worked 
on this topic.
  I am convinced that as the ballots are cast and the votes are made 
this week on this bill and on this amendment, Senators from both 
parties are going to say: No, that is not the job of the EPA. It is not 
what the Congress intended EPA to do.
  This is a great example of the Congress trying to step up and make 
the point that the regulators should not be

[[Page S1926]]

able to do by regulation what the legislators are unwilling to do by 
legislation.
  This issue was discussed last year--the cap-and-trade law that passed 
the House in the last Congress. People around America looked at it and 
said that higher prices were not the way to get more efficient energy 
policies. The way to get more efficient energy policies is to look for 
ways to produce more American energy, to have a marketplace that has 
more choices than the ones we have now. As people looked at this issue, 
they said: Let's find more American energy of all kinds, and let's be 
conservationists and encourage that we use that energy as efficiently 
as possible, and let's also be out there researching and investing in 
the future so that we know what we want our energy picture to look like 
a generation from now--not that we blindly rush in and think high 
prices will solve our energy problems.
  We all know that the President of the United States, before the 
election in 2008, in talking to the editorial board of the San 
Francisco Chronicle, made the comment that under his energy policies, 
energy prices would necessarily skyrocket. The President has looked at 
this economy closely--I hope--over the last 2 years of his Presidency, 
and clearly every signal from the administration now is that they have 
concerns about $4-a-gallon gasoline, even though there are people in 
that advisory group who at one time said gas prices should be as high 
as the gas prices in Europe and that is the way to solve our use of 
gasoline. We don't live in Europe. We live in a country that is large, 
expansive, and requires travel and commerce. So high gas prices are not 
the answer to our transportation problems, and higher utility bills are 
not the answer to our energy problems.
  In fact, as people looked at the potential of cap and trade on 
utility bills, they looked at how much of our utilities come from coal. 
Of course, cap and trade--and the EPA regulations that would try to 
impose cap and trade by regulation--cap and trade is particularly 
focused on coal-based utilities. From the middle of Pennsylvania to the 
western edge of Wyoming, 50 percent of the electricity in the country 
comes from coal. Mr. President, in your State and my State, a 
significant majority of the electricity comes from coal. In Missouri, 
it is 82 percent of the electricity that comes from coal.
  In our State, the utility providers got together--the rural electric 
cooperatives, the municipal utilities, the privately owned and publicly 
owned--and funded a study with which nobody ever found fault. Nobody 
has challenged the study. In that study, in our State the average 
utility bill would go up about 80 percent in the first 10 years under 
cap and trade. It would come close to doubling in the first 12 years. 
For many utility customers, it would double. If the average bill is 
going to go up 80 percent, for many customers out there, their bill 
would double in 10 years, and for the average customer, it would double 
in about a dozen years. Who benefits from that?
  At a hearing the other day with the EPA Administrator, I talked about 
a visit I had last fall with someone who explained to me that he was an 
hourly employee at a company--by that point, with the discussion of cap 
and trade, almost all Missourians knew our utility bills would double 
in about 10 years--and he said: If my utility bill doubles, that is a 
bad thing. If my retired mother's bill doubles, that is worse. If the 
utility bill at work doubles and my job goes away, then the other bills 
don't matter that much because I can't pay mine and help my mom pay 
hers.
  That individual has a Ph.D. in common sense, if not economics. That 
is what happens if we allow these bills to go up. Because of that 
discussion, I stand here today absolutely confident that, in the 
foreseeable future, Congress will not impose that penalty on our 
economy. If the Congress won't impose that penalty on our economy, we 
should not let regulators impose that penalty on our economy.
  What the McConnell amendment does--again, with the hard work of 
Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, and others--is simply redefine the authority 
or maybe reemphasize the definition Congress thought it was giving the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and it says: You can't regulate these 
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. It doesn't stop the Clean Air 
Act's provisions to protect clean air in every way that was anticipated 
until the recent determination that somehow EPA had the authority to 
also regulate greenhouse gases, but it does refocus the EPA on the 
intention of the Clean Air Act, not their expansion of the Clean Air 
Act.

  By the way, the EPA has no ability to expand the Clean Air Act. That 
is the job of the Congress of the United States. Fine, if we want to 
have that debate. In fact, we had that debate last year. The House 
passed a bill that would have done what the EPA's new sense of their 
own mission would do, and I think the American people spoke pretty 
loudly about that. Because of that, the last Congress didn't pass that 
bill. The House of Representatives passed a bill, but the Senate didn't 
pass that bill. This Congress isn't going to pass that bill either, and 
I would predict that the next Congress won't pass that bill.
  Why won't they pass the bill? Why won't we pass a bill in this 
Congress? Why won't the next Congress pass a bill? They know it has a 
devastating impact on our economy; and if the Congress doesn't want 
there to be a devastating impact on our economy, we also shouldn't want 
the Environmental Protection Agency to do something that would have a 
devastating impact on our economy.
  In fact, when we look at the economies around the world, the 
economies that have the greatest problems with air and water are the 
economies that failed; the economies where, at some point, those 
countries decide, ultimately, they are going to do whatever it takes to 
get back to where they can have jobs that allow families to live.
  The EPA is bound, and should be bound, by what the Congress initially 
intended with the Clean Air Act, not what the EPA thinks today is their 
job--and particularly if it is not a job that everybody in this 
building knows the legislators will not do. If the legislators won't do 
it, the legislators shouldn't let the regulators do it, and this simply 
clarifies that.
  I urge my colleagues this week to vote for this amendment, to make it 
clear to the Environmental Protection Agency that they have plenty of 
things to do and many things that we will support them as they do, but 
this isn't one of them. This hurts our economy. It is not their 
mission. It was not the intention of the Clean Air Act. This amendment 
allows that to be reinforced once again by the Congress, the group that 
is supposed to pass the laws. Laws aren't supposed to be passed by 
regulators. I suppose they are intentionally determined to be 
implemented by regulators but not created by regulators or created by 
the administration. That is our job.
  This bill reemphasizes our job. Again, it doesn't let the regulatory 
group do a job that increases the utility bill, that doubles the 
electric bill in Missouri, and raises the electric bill for the vast 
preponderance of Americans, for people retired, on a fixed income. 
Clearly, jobs will go away if those electric bills are raised, and they 
will not go to other places in the United States in most cases; they 
will go to other countries that care a whole lot less about what comes 
out of the smoke stack than we do.
  So if the EPA is allowed to do with greenhouse gases what it says it 
wants to do, we will lose the jobs and the problem will get greater 
because these jobs will go to countries that care a whole lot less 
about emissions than we do.
  Let's let the legislators do their job. I encourage my colleagues to 
vote for this amendment this week as they think about how we approach 
this important issue--about our economy, about our jobs, about our 
families and our future.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President, and I suggest the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, rightfully so, the focus in this Congress 
is

[[Page S1927]]

very much about the economy and job creation, and it is appropriate 
that we have before the Senate a piece of legislation dealing with 
small business. We know small business and entrepreneurship is a path 
to job creation.
  We are spending a lot of time in this Senate, in the House, and in 
Washington, DC, discussing the economy, and one of the things that is 
front and center today is the need for us to be much more responsible 
in our spending habits. In my view, the Federal Government is 
financially broke. Rightfully so, we ought to pass a continuing 
resolution that reduces spending for the remaining 6 months of this 
fiscal year. We ought to quickly move to a budget and to an 
appropriations process that allows for the give-and-take, the 
consideration of those things that we can afford to spend money on, the 
things that are appropriately the role of the Federal Government, and 
find those places in which we can again significantly reduce spending. 
That is an important aspect of whether we are going to get our economy 
back on track and jobs created.
  I think often we write off what happens in Washington, DC. The 
American people see us as just Republicans and Democrats having one 
more battle about spending and deficits. These are things I have heard, 
topics I have heard discussed my entire life coming out of Washington, 
DC. The reality is, this is an important issue at an important time in 
our country's history. In the absence of an appropriate resolution of 
this spending issue, in my view, the standard of living Americans enjoy 
today will be reduced, inflation will return, the value of the dollar 
will be diminished, and the standard of living we have become 
accustomed to as Americans, as I say, will be diminished. But worse 
than that, the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to pursue 
the American dream will be less than what we want it to be, certainly 
less than what I experienced as an American growing up in this country.
  Yes, it is no fun for us, as elected officials, to talk about what 
needs to be cut, spending that needs to be reduced. I certainly stand 
willing to work with my colleagues and with the President and others to 
see we accomplish that goal of reducing spending, and the consequences 
of that being a better budget picture and a reduced deficit. But there 
is a positive aspect of what we can do to reduce our budget deficit 
that goes beyond just cutting spending; that is, to create jobs, to 
create economic expansion.
  The optimism this country needs can be restored by decisions we make 
in the Congress. Those decisions revolve around a business or an 
entrepreneur, a small business man or woman's decision that it is time 
to expand their plant, it is time to invest and put in more equipment, 
that it is time to hire an additional employee.
  In my view, one of the reasons that is not happening is the tax 
environment that has been created, the uncertainty that we have with 
what our Tax Code is going to be, the lack of access to credit, the 
uncertainty our bankers and other financial lenders face in determining 
whether they can make a loan to a creditworthy customer, and especially 
the one I want to talk about briefly today, which is the regulatory 
environment in which the business community finds itself.
  This effort by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate 
greenhouse gases, in my view, is very negative toward job creation in 
two ways: One, it increases the cost of being in business, and that 
occurs at a time in which we don't expect other countries to abide by 
the same regimen that we may create--that our Environmental Protection 
Agency may create--around the world, that we would not expect other 
countries to abide by those same rules and regulations the EPA is 
putting in place.
  That means, once again, American workers, American business is at a 
competitive disadvantage in comparison to those who make decisions 
about where plants are located, and we lose access to world markets 
because someone else can sell something cheaper than we can because of 
rising costs of production.
  So even if there is an effort that excludes agriculture or small 
business from this legislation, the cost of production goes up, because 
in addition to the direct effect of having those regulations apply to 
your business, there is the indirect increase in cost related to fuel 
and energy costs--electricity and gas.
  Clearly, to me, if you care about job creation, you would make 
certain that the Environmental Protection Agency does not head down the 
path that it is going, because of the increased cost of being in 
business and the consequence that has for American business to be able 
to compete in a global economy.
  The second aspect of that is, and I think it is one of the real drags 
on today's recovery from the recession, is the uncertainty. No business 
person feels comfortable today in making a decision to expand or to put 
more people to work, to hire an additional employee, to invest in plant 
or equipment, because they do not know what the next set of regulations 
is going to do to their bottom line.
  So with the uncertainty of this issue, we have had the drag upon our 
economy with the thought that Congress might pass the legislation 
labeled cap and trade. It became clear when the Senate adjourned at the 
end of 2010 that that was not going to happen. But then the uncertainty 
became, but what is the Environmental Protection Agency going to do?
  As I visit plants, facilities across Kansas and talk to family owners 
of small businesses, manufacturers, the most common question I get from 
a business owner is, what next is government going to do that may put 
me out of business? It is unfortunate. It seems as though government is 
no longer even neutral in regard to the success of a business in the 
United States but has become an adversary.
  I urge my colleagues to support the McConnell amendment. I think it 
is a clear statement that the Environmental Protection Agency cannot do 
what it intends to do. It eliminates the uncertainty that a business 
person faces, and it reduces the cost of being in business in a way 
that says, we are going to grow the economy and put people to work.
  We are going to have a lot of conversation on the Senate floor, we 
are going to have discussions with the administration, with our 
colleagues in the House of Representatives, about what spending we are 
going to cut. And those are difficult conversations. But I come back to 
the point that we as Americans have the opportunity to be optimistic. 
What we need to do for us to have a bright future, what we can do to 
have a positive conversation with the American people about what good 
things are yet to come, revolves around the fact that we will get rid 
of onerous regulations that serve no valid purpose in improving our 
environment and create great uncertainty and ever increasing costs for 
being in business.
  We can have this conversation in a vacuum. But the reality is, our 
economy does not operate in a vacuum. Our business folks in Kansas and 
across the country have to compete in a global economy. This 
legislation that Senator McConnell and Senator Inhofe have offered 
eliminates that uncertainty, reduces the cost of being in business, and 
allows us to have optimism about the future of the American economy 
and, most importantly, optimism for the people who sit around their 
dining room table wanting to make certain they either can keep a job or 
find a job.
  I see the McConnell amendment as that moment of optimism. The message 
we send to the American worker, to those who are employed and to those 
who are unemployed, that this Senate understands that unless we get rid 
of the impediments toward growing an economy, we have little optimism 
about the future of job creation.
  The McConnell amendment sends that message. It does it in a way that 
makes a lot of sense for the American economy and for the American 
worker.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bennet). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. 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.

                          ____________________