[Congressional Record Volume 161, Number 93 (Thursday, June 11, 2015)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4070-S4073]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FEDERAL REGULATIONS
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about the growing
burden of Federal regulations and the need to rein in the creation of
new rules and the expansion of existing rules. The regulatory burden in
2014 is reported to be nearly $2 trillion, and the Federal Register
last year came out to nearly 78,000 pages of new rules and regulations.
This chart shows that 78,000 pages of regulations is all too common,
especially for this administration, where regulatory overreach has
become normal, and the size of the Federal Register has topped 80,000
pages for 4 out of the 6 years of the President's time in office. With
this administration, we are seeing a high-water mark of regulations
that are drowning American families and businesses.
The flood of regulations has been getting bigger every year for the
past 2\1/2\ decades under administrations from both parties. We can't
afford to keep piling on these rules. The economic burden of Federal
regulations is clear. One study estimated that the regulatory burden in
the United States cost more than $1.8 trillion in 2014 and was bigger
than the GDP of India.
My second chart puts this in perspective: Only the 10 largest
economies are bigger than the U.S. regulatory burden all by itself.
This burden is real. Some studies have estimated the regulatory drag
on economic growth in the United States to be as high as 2 percent per
year over the last 6\1/2\ decades. An annual report from the
Competitive Enterprise Institute also noted that in 2014 regulations
cost the average household nearly $15,000. A study by the Small
Business Administration found that regulations increase costs by more
than $10,000 per employee.
The fact that we cannot afford this burden is just as clear. Economic
growth in the first quarter shrank by seven-tenths of 1 percent. If we
get a growth of 1 percent, it increases the revenue, without raising
taxes, to the United States by $300 billion. That is according to the
Congressional Budget Office. According to the President's budget
person, it would increase it by $400 billion. Imagine what a seventh-
tenths loss costs us.
Complex regulations are costly and time-consuming, especially for
small businesses. Small business owners and their employees have to
take on dozens of different responsibilities to make their business
work. They have to be compliance experts now, and that takes time and
resources away that they need to put toward growing their business and
succeeding. I have spoken to many businesses in Wyoming that have
stopped measuring their permitting applications in pages because it is
easier to measure them in feet.
Businesses are struggling in this regulatory environment because they
can't make long-term plans for investments. They don't know what new
regulation might come out next month that will change their entire
business model. And the problem with complex permitting and regulatory
requirements is not just the cost that existing businesses have to
bear; it also comes as a cost in businesses that don't even get started
because the Federal Government has placed a mountain of paperwork
between their idea and success.
The rush of regulations by this administration is clear. President
Obama's administration has issued
[[Page S4071]]
more than 80 regulations that have a price tag of more than $100
million each. That is, at a minimum, $80 billion in costs for this
administration's rules.
But what is more disturbing is not just the willingness to churn out
more redtape but to find new and creative ways to do it. Agencies are
only supposed to create new rules when they have clear authority from
Congress to do so and can demonstrate a real need for the regulations.
However, we are seeing more and more examples of the administration
finding new justifications and new interpretations of laws that
Congress has passed in order to get around Congress.
President Obama said that because he is unable to rely on Congress to
achieve his agenda, he intends to use Executive orders. We have seen
that with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor
Relations Board, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is
collecting everybody's data as we speak, the National Security Agency,
and so many other Federal agencies that are willing to read new
authorities into existing laws and grant themselves new powers that
Congress never intended.
One place that is willing to force through an agenda regardless of
congressional intent, the will of the people, or the Constitution, is
in the energy sector. Energy is one of the main drivers of our economy.
Yet, this administration is doing everything it can to wage a
regulatory war on coal by releasing rules and regulations designed to
make coal harder to produce and making energy more expensive to use in
our Nation. Anyone who uses electricity should be concerned about
this--oh yeah, that is everybody, isn't it?
I recently talked to some sisters who were driving from Arizona to
Wyoming. They were running low on gas, so they stopped in Colorado to
fill up. The power was out at the gas station, so they couldn't pump
gas or get a snack or use the restroom. All of these things--the gas
pump, the cash register, the restroom lights--depend on electricity.
Think of all the things around you that depend on electricity. Almost
everything we do depends on electricity. Yet, this administration seems
to want to do anything it can to drive up the cost of electricity.
A few years ago, Senators on both sides of the aisle realized that
coal is one of our best sources of energy, the only stockpileable one,
and rejected a cap-and-tax as an extremely expensive and bad idea--
bipartisan. Now the administration is moving forward on a backdoor cap-
and-tax proposal. They believe the best way to reach their goals of
promoting alternative energy sources is to make the current sources
more and more expensive to produce and to use. This hurts consumers, it
hurts jobs, and it hurts our economy.
It is a simple fact: Make it more expensive to mine coal, and the
coal industry will be less profitable. Make it more expensive to use
coal to produce energy, and consumers will see a hit on their energy
bills each and every month. Make it more difficult to turn a profit
with coal, and coal workers will find themselves with fewer benefits,
less job security, and a lot less employment, which costs the
government more for unemployment.
This administration has made it clear that they do not care about
these costs. The Small Business Advocate wrote EPA that their review
panel on the Clean Power Plan was only checking the box and ``is
unlikely to succeed at identifying reasonable regulatory alternatives
for small businesses.'' The incomplete information they provided
``greatly limits [small entity representatives'] ability to propose
potential regulatory flexibilities or discuss the costs and benefits of
particular regulatory alternatives.''
Rural electric cooperatives, transmission companies, and municipal
utilities are going to bear the costs of these coal regulations. This
is where our communities get their electricity, so those costs will
likely be passed on to consumers. Businesses really have no other
choice.
Several Members are pushing back on this regulatory overreach. For
example, I am proud to cosponsor a bill Senator Vitter introduced
earlier this week to protect small business from the onslaught of
regulations. But the recent case of the Colowyo mine is a good example
of how the administration does not care about a loss of jobs or costs
to consumers and is a clear signal to Congress that we have to do more
to oppose this.
Coal produced by this mine is responsible for employing over 200
people. The Craig Power Station in Senator Gardner's State of Colorado
sends power to a tristate cooperative which provides service in the
West. If the cooperative goes offline, electricity prices for electric
customers will rise. Why would it go offline? Because of a little
vacation on the mine planned from 2007.
Senator Gardner, will this affect your State's mine? But it also sets
a wider precedent against our most dependable fuel source.
So what does taking this one mine offline--I know they are picking on
a small one. That is easier to do than pick on a big one. But what does
it mean to your constituents?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank the Senator from Wyoming through the Chair for
bringing that point to our colleagues about what is happening in
western Colorado and the Colowyo mine.
The Senator from Wyoming mentioned in his comments that sometimes the
regulations from this administration can and should be measured in a
matter of feet and not just pages because that is how many new
regulations are being piled upon businesses in this country.
In the case of the Colowyo Mine, though, a 2007 permit is being
brought into question by a Federal court that has given this mine 120
days--the Office of Surface Mining--to rectify a decision that was made
back in 2007. This is a court case that was brought 8 years after the
2007 permit was granted.
If the 120 days go by and the court decides that the review was not
complete by the Office of Surface Mining, it could result in a shutdown
of the Colowyo Mine. As you mentioned, this will result in 220 layoffs.
Communities in western Colorado of Craig and Meeker will be devastated.
This mine is responsible for about $200 million in economic impact to
Western Colorado. It pays almost $10 million to the Federal Government
in terms of taxes. It pays about $1 million to the State of Colorado in
terms of severance taxes. Think about the impact that losing 220 people
would have on the Main Street of Craig, CO, and on the people of
Meeker, CO. Think about the impacts this would have on families and the
kids of the 220 employees who are being pulled out of school systems.
Maybe $100,000 or more of impact to schools that can barely afford the
loss already. That is just to mention the direct impacts to those
communities of this court decision, and, by the way, we only have about
85 or 86 days left to rectify this permit decision if the Department of
the Interior decides they are not going to appeal this decision. You
have about 80-some days to make this decision that could affect the
lives of 220 people, that could affect $200 million worth of economic
activity.
You mentioned that this power is from an electric co-op. The Senator
from Wyoming mentioned that this power is from an electricity co-op, a
cooperative. There are no shareholders. There are no stockholders.
There is no guaranteed income to Tri-State.
This is an organization that is a cooperative. It is designed to be
owned by its members, those people who receive power through the
cooperative. When we increase the cost of electricity by closing down a
mine that feeds the Craig Power Station, in this case, you are
increasing the cost of that electricity. You are taking money out of
the hands of members across the Tri-State region, whether that is in
Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico or Nebraska. Those costs will get borne
by the members of the cooperative.
One thing that we know as well is that Tri-State is one of those
cooperatives that provide electricity to some of the poorest areas in
Colorado. They are some of the areas that can least afford it. As a
result of this decision, it will increase the cost of electricity, and
those costs will be borne by those people who can least afford it--
people on low income, people on fixed income, people in rural areas of
our State who do not have as high an income as other areas in the State
or country may have. This will have a significant economic impact.
[[Page S4072]]
In fact, the Senator from Wyoming may or may not know that a number
of Members of Congress from the Colorado congressional delegation have
written letters to the Department of the Interior urging them to appeal
this decision as well as to put a stay on this decision, as we have 80-
some days left and because 220 people, their lives, their livelihoods,
their jobs are at stake, and these are small communities. They are
communities that can be economically devastated with 220 job losses.
The Presiding Officer represents a State where there are many towns
where five jobs are a really big deal, two jobs are a really big deal,
one job is a really big deal. For a community that is the size of the
town that I live in--3,000 people or so--to lose 220 jobs would be
economic catastrophe.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a letter from Governor John Hickenlooper to the Honorable Sally
Jewell, Secretary of the Interior, asking for an appeal of this
decision. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
letter written by Congressman Ed Perlmutter to appeal this decision. In
addition, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a
letter that I wrote, as well as Congressman Scott Tipton wrote, asking
and urging for an appeal of this decision.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
State of Colorado,
Office of the Governor,
Denver, CO, May 22, 2015.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Jewell: On May 8, 2015, a federal District
Court judge in Denver issued a decision that could have
significant impacts to communities in Moffat and Rio Blanco
Counties, in northwest Colorado. That ruling found that the
Interior Department's Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement (OSMRE) failed to perform adequate public
notice and environmental analysis when approving a mining
plan for the Colowyo Coal Mine pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act. Colowyo employs 220 people,
contributes over $200 million to the regional economy,
generates royalties and taxes estimated at $12.0 million
annually, and provides affordable and reliable electricity to
Colorado and the Intermountain West.
The final judgment in the Colowyo case stated that the
court will void OSMRE's approval of the mining plan if the
agency does not, within 120 days, supplement the
environmental analysis, provide public notice and an
opportunity to comment, and render a new decision. Such a
result would effectively shut down the Colowyo Coal Mine,
result in layoffs for all 220 individuals, impact hundreds of
other families and businesses in the region, and eliminate
the principle source of coal for the Craig Station Power
Plant.
We have expressed our concerns to OSMRE about these impacts
and pledged to play whatever role we can to minimize them,
including participation as a cooperating agency in OSMRE's
supplemental environmental review. Given the importance of
this mine to the economies of the region, we ask that you do
everything possible to respond to the judge's order and
remedy the situation as expeditiously as possible. If needed,
we encourage OSMRE to petition the court for an extension of
the time granted to complete the supplemental environmental
review. In addition, we encourage you and OSMRE to appeal the
decision if appropriate, given potential adverse impacts on
mines in Colorado and other federal permitting decisions.
Thank you for your consideration. If we can be of any
assistance, please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
John W. Hickenlooper,
Governor.
____
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
June 2, 2015.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Jewell: I write regarding the recent federal
District Court ruling affecting the Colowyo mine in Colorado.
The ruling found the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement (OSMRE) failed to fulfill the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act when approving the amended
mining plan in 2007. The ruling gave OSMRE 120 days to re-
examine the application and comply with the deficiencies
identified by the Court.
I am concerned this ruling could have a damaging impact on
communities in Moffat and Rio Blanco Counties. The mine
supports more than 200 employees, over $200 million in annual
economic impact to the region, and is important to the steady
supply of coal for Craig Station Power Plant which provides
electricity to thousands of Coloradans. Quick resolution to
this case is important so these workers and communities have
the certainty they need.
I understand OSMRE is working with the State of Colorado
pursuant to the Court's 120-day timeline to conduct
additional public outreach and considerations in the
environmental assessment. The Colowyo Coal Company also filed
an appeal of the decision last week. While OSMRE must
continue working to follow the Court's orders, I believe the
Interior Department should also direct the Justice Department
to appeal the Court's decision.
Thank you for your consideration and your attention to this
important issue.
Sincerely,
Ed Perlmutter,
Member of Congress.
____
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, May 21, 2015.
Hon. Sally Jewell,
Secretary of the Interior, Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC.
Secretary Jewell: On May 8, 2015, the Federal District
Court for the District of Colorado issued an order
determining that the Office of Surface Mining (``OSM'')
failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(``NEPA'') in 2007, when it issued a mine plan approval for
the Colowyo Coal Mine. The Court gave OSM 120 days to prepare
a new analysis and issue a new decision. If OSM does not
complete the process in 120 days, the Court stated that it
would vacate the mine plan, effectively shutting down the
Mine.
We write to urge you to take all necessary and appropriate
action to ensure the continued operation of the Colowyo Coal
Mine, which is a critical component of northwest Colorado's
regional economy and has responsibly operated in the eight
years since the mine plan approval was issued by your office.
Coal produced by this mine, located in Moffat and Rio Blanco
counties, is then used to generate power at the Craig station
and is responsible for employing over 200 people with a
payroll of around $20 million dollars. Requested actions
include urgently deploying sufficient personnel with the
resources and expertise to complete the supplemental NEPA
work within the 120 day window provided by the District
Court.
Colowyo Coal Mine is a significant contributor to both of
the counties' economies. The adverse effects of shutting down
this mine go beyond the jobs at the mine that would be lost.
We surely do not need to impress upon your office the
potentially devastating impact of reducing operations at two
of the counties' largest employers as well as one of the
largest electricity providers in the western half of the
state.
In addition, we strongly urge OSM to evaluate the propriety
of an appeal. Without remarking on the reasoning of the Court
contained within the decision itself, the result nonetheless
creates adverse precedent with other suits pending, which
would harm not only Colowyo and the town of Craig, but
potentially numerous other mining operations and towns in
other states as well. The federal government must vigorously
defend the legality of its permitting actions, and leave
policy debates over the role of coal to the legislative and
rulemaking proceedings where those debates belong.
Respectfully,
Cory Gardner,
U.S. Senator.
Scott Tipton,
Member of Congress.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. ENZI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Colorado for his
insights. This is the beginning of a process of eliminating coal mining
in the United States. Here is a company that has their permit for 8
years for mining coal, and that permit took extensive permitting. Now
what they are saying is that you have to take a look at where the coal
is burned to see what the impacts are. That has never been one of the
requirements. Again, it is one of those increases in regulation that
this administration is fond of. It is designed to put things out of
business, to raise costs.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article
called ``The Case For Legislative Impact Accounting Economics 21,''
which is part of the Manhattan Institute.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[June 9, 2015]
The Case For Legislative Impact Accounting Economics 21 (part of the
Manhattan Institute)
(By Jason J. Fichtner, Patrick A. McLaughlin)
For the first time in six years, Congress finally passed a
budget resolution. The federal budget process, when it works,
permits Congress to monitor and fund programs based on their
fiscal impact. Yet every Congressional budget masks the true
economic costs of federal spending. Mandatory spending, which
makes up the vast majority of federal spending and includes
interest on the national debt, Social Security, Medicare and
Medicaid, is not part of the annual budget process. Also
excluded from the annual budget
[[Page S4073]]
process are the costs of regulations. In fact, the vast
majority of economic costs induced by federal actions remain
off the books.
We propose reforming the legislative and regulatory
processes to put these costs on the books. After all, proper
budgeting is about making trade-offs between competing wants
and limited resources, and it requires planning, setting
priorities and making difficult decisions. But these
decisions cannot be made without a more complete
understanding of the direct and indirect costs of proposed
legislation and spending bills, and their regulatory Progeny.
Our proposal, called legislative impact accounting, would
provide that information to Congress.
Estimates of the total cost of regulations vary widely, but
by any account, they represent a significant cost to the
economy. Government economists in the Office of Management
and Budget tally up the direct compliance costs associated
with rules created in the last decade that have an effect of
more than $100 million annually. OMB's most recent estimate
was that annual costs fall between $57 and $84 billion.
Conversely, economists John Dawson and John Seater estimated
how the economy would look if federal regulations were held
to 1949 levels--essentially asking the question: What if,
instead of spending resources on regulatory compliance,
businesses invested in research and development? The answer
was shocking. In 2011, instead of $15.1 trillion, annual GDP
would have equaled $54 trillion . . .
Our proposal, legislative impact accounting, would
incorporate economic analyses of legislation and regulation
into the budget process in two ways: First, when new
legislation is proposed, an independent office--perhaps the
Congressional Budget Office--would produce an estimate of the
economic costs the legislation would create. Importantly, a
legislative impact assessment would attempt to consider
economic costs of proposed legislation, not just budgetary
outlays. Examples of some of the effects that could be
included as specific line items are: direct compliance costs,
employment effects, technological hindrances, trade
distortions, and changes to the cumulative regulatory burden.
This type of analysis is not unprecedented. The European
Commission provides impact assessments on all legislation
considered by the European Parliament.
Second, legislative impact accounting would require
retrospective analyses of the economic effects of
legislation, starting five years after the legislation
passed. The idea is to learn what the real effects have been,
and to then update the original estimates produced in the
first stage. This would effectively create a much-needed
feedback loop that communicates information about the
economic effects of legislation back to Congress.
Mr. ENZI. I yield the floor.
____________________