Department Of The Interior, Environment, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010
Floor Speech
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2010 -- (Senate - September 24, 2009)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to speak in support of an amendment that was offered earlier today, actually it was filed, I think it was attempted to be called up by Senator Murkowski. The Democratic majority objected to getting a vote on that amendment, which, I think, suggests they do not want to have a vote on that amendment. Frankly, I can see why.
From what I hear about the whole debate on climate change and cap-and-trade legislation that has passed in the House, it will not be voted on in the Senate this year. The reason it will not be voted on is because there are a lot of people in this Chamber who, I think, do not want to have that vote because they know it is a bad vote for them to make.
Fear not, EPA has come to the rescue of people who want to see a lot of this stuff accomplished but do not want to have to make a tough political vote on it. So what we are now faced with is the Environmental Protection Agency deciding they are going to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act and moving forward with the regulations to do that.
The Murkowski amendment would essentially prevent funds from being used to do that. It weighs in favor of having Congress deal with this very complex, very weighty, very consequential, and very costly issue to the American people.
This legislation, as we all know, would increase energy prices, cost us jobs, be unfair to entire regions of the country, mine included, enlarge an already bloated bureaucracy in Washington, DC, and put our Nation at a certain economic disadvantage.
I have been skeptical of that controversial legislation that has passed the House, the cap-and-trade bill over there, for some time, for the reasons I have mentioned.
Additionally, I think it is fair to say there would be very little environmental benefit derived from that legislation, were it enacted, without binding, enforceable commitments by China, by India, and other developing countries that are now significant sources of carbon emissions.
I find it disappointing that in the middle of this important debate the administration wants to use the back door--issuing regulations to cap carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act because they cannot get a Waxman-Markey type climate bill through the front door.
Instead, the relevant committees of this body and the Senate as a whole should be able to consider whether now is the right time for a new massive energy tax disguised as an EPA regulation.
During the previous administration, the EPA had published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that showed just how impractical it would be to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.
These onerous regulations covered homes, schools, churches, hospitals, small businesses and potentially even small farms with livestock.
Under the Clean Air Act, the primary mechanism for regulating carbon emissions would be a fee placed on each ton of covered pollutant emitted above a certain threshold.
This fee, if applied to carbon emissions, is nothing more than a tax on energy that would have severe consequences as our economy struggles to recover from a long recession.
While the Bush administration regulations never made it past an initial draft, the Obama EPA is moving quickly to finalize an endangerment finding and regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
In April 2009, the EPA issued a draft endangerment finding that linked emissions from motor vehicles to an endangerment of human health.
The comment period has closed on this draft endangerment finding, and when the EPA issues a final ruling it will trigger an array of regulations under the Clean Air Act.
These command and control regulations will have far reaching consequences for our economy at a time when we can least afford it.
According to media reports, EPA will eventually propose regulations for not just mobile sources, but stationary sources that emit over 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide.
The first round of regulations on stationary sources would cover approximately 13,000 facilities in the United States.
These include powerplants, large manufacturing facilities, refineries, fertilizer manufacturers, and a long list of other facilities that are critical to the health of our economy.
In South Dakota, these regulations would place a tax on powerplants, ethanol refineries, and even our largest public university.
And we need to remember that these companies will pass these new costs on to you and me. Now is an especially bad time to saddle the American people with what is in effect a gigantic new energy tax that would cause electricity, gasoline, and home heating costs to skyrocket.
Additionally, pending the outcome of the final endangerment finding, the EPA might be legally bound to regulate all sources that emit over 250 tons of carbon dioxide.
If this statutory threshold of the Clean Air Act is enforced, over 1 million carbon-emitting entities would be faced with a new tax, including commercial buildings, churches, homes, schools, restaurants, and manufacturing facilities both big and small.
Regulation of carbon dioxide is far too important for EPA and the administration to craft expensive, cumbersome, top-down regulations under the Clean Air Act.
Republicans in the Senate know this, Democrats in the Senate know this, the EPA knows this and the White House knows this.
Last year, Congressman John Dingell said that EPA greenhouse gas regulations would lead to ``a glorious mess.'' He continued by stating that ``As a matter of national policy, it seems ..... insane that we would be talking about leaving this kind of judgment, which everybody tells us has to be addressed with great immediacy, to a long and complex process of regulatory action.''
Congressman Dingell said it best when he concluded that carbon regulation under EPA had ``the potential for shutting down or slowing down virtually all industry and all economic activity and growth.''
According to an OMB memo associated with EPA's endangerment finding, ``Making the decision to regulate CO 2 under the [Clean Air Act] for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.''
Representative Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, noted in a recent op-ed that EPA regulations of greenhouse gas emissions would result ``in one of the largest and most bureaucratic nightmares that the U.S. economy and Americans have ever seen.''
Senator Murkowski and I have filed an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 Interior and Environment appropriations bill that would prohibit the EPA from moving forward with regulations on carbon dioxide emitted from stationary sources for 1 year.
This amendment is not intended to impact the recent announcement from EPA and the Department of Transportation regarding new tailpipe emission requirements for new cars and light trucks.
Additionally, this amendment is not intended to impact the regulation of other greenhouse gasses, such as hydrofloural carbons, which are also included in the proposed endangerment finding.
This amendment would simply delay the expensive, top-down regulation of carbon emissions from thousands if not 1 million stationary sources in the United States.
For those Senators who wish to regulate carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade system, I encourage you to support this amendment as well . You should be supporting this amendment.
This amendment is not about whether carbon dioxide emissions should be regulated or whether the Federal Government should take any action to reduce carbon emissions. Rather, this amendment is about the process of regulating carbon dioxide emissions.
Should regulations as far reaching and expensive as taxing carbon dioxide be determined by EPA bureaucrats behind closed doors? Or should carbon regulations be openly debated on the floor of the U.S. Senate?
The Murkowski amendment gives the Senate a clear choice.
Constituents, through their elected representatives, should have a voice in that debate. If carbon dioxide regulations moved through the EPA unchanged, the American people would be deprived of their opportunity to be heard on this very important subject. Meanwhile the cost of gasoline, food, and manufactured goods will skyrocket. I urge colleagues on both sides to acknowledge the extremely dangerous consequences of allowing the administration to unilaterally regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. I understand the Murkowski amendment will not be allowed to be voted on. I believe the regulations that amendment addresses should be delayed until Congress has the opportunity to debate the consequences. I will continue to work with Senator Murkowski and other colleagues, families, and small business, to make them aware of what the EPA intends to do by regulation.
In addition to speaking on the Murkowski amendment, as I have filed an amendment which is similar, I ask unanimous consent to call up my amendment and ask that it be made pending.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
Mr. THUNE. Let me briefly speak to the amendment because it simply addresses this subject in a slightly different way. It is clear the majority does not want to have a vote on either the Murkowski amendment or my amendment because they get at the fundamental issue which is whether we are going to have a debate in Congress about regulating CO 2 emissions or whether we will allow an administrative agency, the EPA, to do that for us. I understand my amendment, which has now been objected to, will not have a vote. We know where the votes are on this. But like the Murkowski amendment, what my amendment is designed to do is to shed daylight on harmful regulations that are taking shape behind the closed doors of the EPA. My amendment is designed to give our constituents a greater say in climate change regulations.
The amendment is also designed to force the EPA to consider the dramatic impact these new Clean Air Act regulations on carbon dioxide will have on electricity and gasoline prices. If these regulations move forward, I am concerned that many families, especially those who rely on coal-generated electricity, will see skyrocketing electricity bills. I am also concerned for families and truckdrivers who could see gasoline and diesel prices go up. EPA regulation of CO 2 would amount to a tax on millions of working-class families.
During debate on the climate change bill, proponents of cap and trade claimed that lower income families will be made whole by giving local distribution companies free allowances to meet the new carbon regulations. Aside from whether this mechanism would actually limit the impact on working families, it is clear such a safeguard is simply not possible under the Clean Air Act. Carbon regulations under the Clean Air Act would effectively be a huge new tax on electricity and gasoline prices paid by families and small businesses.
Additionally, new taxes under the Clean Air Act would apply to oil and ethanol refineries. In South Dakota, we produce approximately a billion gallons annually of ethanol. If the EPA moves forward with carbon caps under the Clean Air Act, 12 ethanol plants in South Dakota will be subject to this new tax. Additionally, we have a large soybean processing facility hoping to soon produce biodiesel that would also be covered. Not only will these costs be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices at the pump, but the new regulations will be a major setback to renewable fuel production. In the end, the energy security benefits of domestic renewable fuel production will be negatively impacted by these new regulations.
My amendment 2540 asks EPA to consider the costs and the adverse impacts these regulations will have on the economy before moving forward with an endangerment finding.
It is clear that neither the Murkowski amendment nor mine will be voted on. This issue is not going away. The EPA is moving forward. The House has acted on this issue. The Senate doesn't want to take the hard votes on this so they have punted it to the EPA. The EPA is now moving forward by regulation to do what Congress doesn't have the courage or the will to do, and that is to have a debate about the relative costs and, perhaps, benefits of climate change legislation. It is wrong for us to allow the bureaucracy at the EPA to move forward with these regulations that could be so harmful to our economy, so harmful to jobs, so disastrous when it comes to the energy prices paid by families and small businesses.
This issue will be back. Senator Murkowski will bring it back. I will bring it back. Others of my colleagues who care about the impact of this particular regulation on small businesses and families will be back to debate the issue even though the Democratic majority will not allow us to get a vote today.
I yield the floor.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source