[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9306-9309]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 9307]]

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 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

[[Page 9308]]

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.
  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

[[Page 9309]]

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 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.

                          ____________________