[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.
____________________