[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 30, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1950-S1951]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about 
jobs, the economy, and our Nation's energy.
  In a few minutes the President will be speaking at Georgetown 
University about energy. I rise today to talk about the President's 
Environmental Protection Agency and his efforts to regulate our global 
climate by taxing, by using a backdoor method called cap and tax, a 
proposal that we will be debating here in the Senate and are debating 
today.
  Folks back home recall the debate about cap and tax. It happened over 
the last few years. Yet the Environmental Protection Agency is trying 
do it through a backdoor method. Attempts to pass this massive energy 
tax on to the hard-working families all across the country have failed. 
It failed in Congress, and it failed because the American public has 
said we do not want new energy taxes.

[[Page S1951]]

  Americans don't want to pay more for gasoline at the pump. Yet they 
are experiencing it every day. I saw it this past weekend in Wyoming. 
Week after week the price at the pump goes up. American families don't 
want to pay more for electricity to heat their homes and run their 
small businesses. Yet the President's Environmental Protection Agency 
is attempting to bypass this Congress and enact their own cap-and-tax 
policy through regulation.
  Cap and tax is unacceptable to the American people. It was 
unacceptable 3 years ago, it was unacceptable 2 years ago, it was 
unacceptable last year, and it is still unacceptable today.
  The EPA may think they know better than the American people. That is 
why this EPA must be stopped. There are different ways to stop the 
EPA's ongoing regulations. We have three proposals before us today, but 
only one is a solution. Of the other amendments, one is a surrender and 
another is a distraction. The McConnell-Inhofe amendment, the one I 
support, is an amendment that will block the EPA's attempt to enact the 
same cap-and-tax bill that has been defeated time and time again on 
Capitol Hill. That is the solution I will talk about shortly.
  However, I wish to talk about the amendments I have concern with. One 
is the Baucus amendment. I do not support the Baucus amendment. To me, 
it is an attempt to surrender in the face of the EPA's dramatic 
regulatory overreach. It is the so-called ``agriculture exemption.''
  When I talk to people in agriculture--the so-called agricultural 
exemption doesn't shield agricultural producers from increased fuel, 
increased energy, and increased fertilizer costs.
  The factories, refineries, and powerplants that are the glue that 
holds the farming industry together and allows it to function will be 
hit with significant energy taxes under the Baucus amendment.
  The aftershock will be felt by American small businesses and farmers 
across the West and the Midwest.
  Farmers and small businesses will face higher electricity costs, 
higher gasoline costs, higher diesel costs, and higher fertilizer 
costs.
  Everything from driving a tractor to shipping your produce to market 
will skyrocket.
  Farms will close, and the cost of produce at the local grocery store 
will go up for all Americans.
  We are not just seeing pain at the pump; people are paying more for 
gas, but they are also paying more for groceries these days. This will 
make that worse.
  If you have any doubt about the impact the Baucus amendment will have 
on farms, talk to the American Farm Bureau because they oppose this 
amendment.
  Another amendment dealing with the EPA is the Rockefeller amendment. 
It calls for a partial delay of EPA regulations for 2 years. This is 
not a delay, it is a distraction. The question is, does it truly delay 
the regulation of greenhouse gases? Not really. A couple are delayed--
two of six--but four greenhouse gases are not. If that sounds like only 
a partial delay, you are correct, it is only partial.
  Does the Rockefeller amendment put in safeguards to ensure the 
Environmental Protection Agency abides by the 2-year partial delay? No, 
it doesn't. The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to stop the EPA from 
stalling construction permits during the 2 years.
  The Rockefeller amendment does nothing to prevent EPA from 
retroactively requiring costly mandates on small businesses, 
powerplants, and manufacturing facilities. It also does not prevent 
climate change nuisance suits, which are filed in court by groups 
opposed to fossil fuel development.
  It seems to me the Rockefeller amendment only delays job growth, 
while giving a green light to EPA to proceed with regulations that will 
be costly to American families and to our American economy.
  For those of us looking to protect jobs across the country and 
restore Congress's authority to determine our own energy future, this 
type of amendment can only be described as a partial delay. It is a 
distraction.
  We don't need a surrender or a distraction; what we need is a 
solution.
  The solution is the McConnell-Inhofe amendment. This amendment 
restores the Clean Air Act to its true meaning and congressional 
intent. Let me get back to that. This amendment restores the Clean Air 
Act to its true meaning and congressional intent.
  The McConnell-Inhofe amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and 
tax. They are trying to do it in a backdoor route with cap and tax. But 
the McConnell amendment blocks EPA's attempt to enact cap and tax by 
blocking EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean 
Air Act, by repealing the EPA's endangerment finding that says carbon 
dioxide is a threat to public health, by repealing the tailoring rule 
that says EPA can arbitrarily pick and choose which businesses they 
want to target, and also by applying it immediately to all greenhouse 
gases.
  This is the amendment we must pass to rein in EPA and to protect 
jobs. This is the amendment that has been endorsed by the U.S. Chamber 
of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, the American Farm Bureau, and 
Americans for Prosperity. The list of supporters of this amendment is 
extensive.
  We need to get serious about America's energy future. Congress needs 
the time to get this policy right. We need to make America's energy as 
clean as we can, as fast as we can, and do it without raising energy 
prices or hurting American families and jobs.
  The McConnell-Inhofe amendment is the right solution.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Franken). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________