Increasing The Statutory Limit On The Public Debt

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, over the past 5 months, I have repeatedly expressed concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to issue backdoor climate regulations under the Clean Air Act. I spoke at length about this issue on the Senate floor in September and then again in December. I have also discussed it with dozens of groups from all across the political spectrum and found there is remarkably widespread agreement with my views on this issue. As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command and control approach is our worst option for reducing emissions blamed for climate change. I also believe that with so much at stake, Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution.

Today, after consultation with the Parliamentarian, I have come to the floor to introduce a resolution of disapproval under the Congressional Review Act that would prevent the EPA from acting on its own. Senator Lincoln of Arkansas, Senator Nelson of Nebraska, and Senator Landrieu of Louisiana have joined me as cosponsors on this bipartisan resolution, along with 35 of my Republican colleagues.

I have also come to reaffirm and reemphasize my previous remarks on this issue. Given what has been alleged about my intentions, I believe this debate needs to be directed back to its substance and away from the ad hominem attacks and red herrings thrown out in the past few weeks.

There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had over whether the EPA should be allowed to issue command and control regulations. I welcome the debate. If there are any Senators who support the unprecedented regulatory intrusion the EPA is pursuing, I hope those Members will come to the floor and explain why. I strongly oppose that approach. I hope my colleagues will listen to my explanation as to why I feel as strongly about this as I do.

Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important issue; that is, whether Members of this body are comfortable with actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I am not comfortable with those actions. Neither are the Senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort. The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases. Its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress.

The decision to offer this resolution was brought about by what will happen in the wake of EPA's decision to issue the endangerment finding. It is not merely a finding; it is actually a floodgate. Under the guise of protecting the environment, it is set to unleash a wave of damaging new regulations that will wash over and further submerge our struggling economy. Make no mistake, if Congress allows this to happen, there will be severe consequences to our economy. Businesses will be forced to cut jobs, if not move outside our borders or close their doors for good, perhaps. Domestic energy production will be severely restricted, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security. Housing will become less affordable and consumer goods more expensive as the impact of the EPA's regulations are felt in towns, cities, and on farms all across America.

My home State is a perfect example of why we must proceed with utmost caution. If these regulations are allowed, the consequences for Alaska will be devastating. Hundreds of facilities will be subject to much greater regulation, including large hospitals, hotels, fish processors, and mines. Energy-intensive businesses throughout the State will be forced to acquire, install, and operate new equipment and technologies. In many cases, this will prove impossible because the technologies are either too expensive or they simply do not exist.

Because the EPA's proposed regulations are such a blunt tool, they will hit my State's energy sector particularly hard. The continued operation of existing businesses and future endeavors alike, including Alaska's three refineries, the Trans Alaska Pipeline System, TAPS, and the proposed Alaska natural gas pipeline, will all be jeopardized.

Take for example the Flint Hills refinery. This is located just south of Fairbanks. This refinery purchases royalty oil out of the pipeline at premium rates, which is critically important to the continued operation of TAPS itself. That 800-mile-long pipeline has been challenged by decreasing throughput as lower volumes are taking longer to arrive from the North Slope. Oil is also arriving at the Flint Hills refinery at lower temperatures than it used to, which requires more energy to heat and craft the crude oil into the marketable fuels Alaskans depend upon. The Flint Hills refinery already struggles to keep its jet fuel output at competitive rates in order to maintain Anchorage's status as a major center for global air cargo. It also faces a relatively inelastic market in Alaska for its other fuel products. The EPA will likely be unable and unwilling to address these issues under its command and control climate regulations.

I mentioned the Alaska natural gas pipeline--something we are working very hard to allow to come about. The construction and operation of an Alaska natural gas pipeline would be significantly hobbled by the EPA. The main reason for this relates to compressor stations which maintain a pipeline's pressures and enable movement of the gas. There is no known best available control technology, as would be required under the Clean Air Act, for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from compressors and no good options for compliance.

I cannot overstate how important these facilities and these projects are to Alaska and to America. Our refineries help ensure the State's status as a transportation hub as well as a strategic base for military operations. The Trans Alaska Pipeline System delivers hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil to Americans each day and most of the revenue for Alaska's State budget. The proposed natural gas pipeline is a pillar of our future economy that will bring Americans billions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas. Collectively, these projects mean well-paying jobs for thousands of hard-working Alaskans. While the EPA's endangerment finding may be described as an effort to protect our environment, it would actually damage the very foundation of my State's economy.

Alaska isn't the only State that would face dire economic consequences. My colleagues need to consider the ripple effect of this decision and the heavy economic burden it will place on those throughout the lower 48. This was foreshadowed in New Mexico back in September. In December, Kentucky faced the same situation; Arkansas, just last week. The EPA has ordered regulators in each of these States to go back to the drawing board on plans to build new powerplants. These decisions were all the result of this EPA's interpretation of the Clean Air Act and represent a fundamental departure from the permitting process Congress had envisioned for this statute. The implications are clear. The people who live in those States are already feeling the effects. Construction is being delayed. Jobs are not being created or, more importantly, being filled. Commerce is suffering. Depending on what becomes of these proposed plants, local residents may have to brace for a spike in energy prices as well.

Seen in this light, the EPA's regulations will not only add a thick new layer of Federal bureaucracy, but they will also serve to depress economic activity, to slow it down, to make it more expensive, to render it less efficient. If you thought the recession made for good environmental policy, I expect you will love what the EPA has to offer. Obtaining Federal air permits is already an exercise in administrative agony that can take years and cost millions of dollars. That is before the existing system is overwhelmed by millions of new applicants.

Instead of accepting that the Clean Air Act is not appropriate for this task, the EPA has proposed to lift its regulatory thresholds to 25,000 tons per year for greenhouse gases. That represents a clear departure from the statute's explicit requirements and has opened the Agency to litigation--costly, time-consuming, and endlessly frustrating litigation. Lawsuits are already being prepared against the EPA's so-called tailoring proposal. When the final rule is issued, it will be challenged. I expect the courts will then reject it, as it has no legal basis, and then restore the regulatory thresholds to 100 tons and 250 tons per year. Before long, the Agency will find itself mired in the regulatory nightmare it has sought to avoid.

Again, it is hard not to find this both surreal and deeply disturbing. The national unemployment rate has spiked to 10-plus percent. Yet here in Washington Federal bureaucrats are contemplating regulations that will destroy jobs, while millions of Americans are doing everything they can just to find one. Moreover, given the amount of time it has taken us in the Senate to consider health care and the list of many other bills waiting to be considered, it appears there will not be enough time for Congress to debate energy and climate legislation before the EPA takes action. That means the people of our States have no voice in this process. They will be subject to rules and regulations that affect their lives and their livelihoods without ever having had an opportunity to express their concerns through their representatives in Congress.

Perhaps the most important question that needs to be answered is, Why would the EPA want to pursue these regulations right now when we should be focused on getting our economy back on track? Environmental advocates, senior Democrats, the administrator of the EPA, and even the President have repeatedly said they prefer congressional legislation. So with such
widespread and high-level agreement, one would think it would be easy to suspend the Agency's efforts. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Many of those same individuals are somehow convinced that the threat of EPA regulations is somehow useful, somehow necessary. It is no secret that this is the centerpiece of a highly coercive strategy. It is the administration attempting to force the Congress to pass a climate bill more quickly than it otherwise would. For my part, that strategy has failed so far. It will continue to fail in the months ahead because Members of Congress will not enact bad legislation in order to stave off bad regulation. What the administration's strategy has done is to put Congress in a difficult position.

It is apparent to almost all of us that more time is needed to develop a good climate policy that can draw the bipartisan support of a majority in the Senate. We are working on it. My staff is actively working to develop a wide range of approaches for reducing emissions. We know Senator Cantwell and Senator Collins have recently introduced a new approach. Senators Graham, Kerry, and Lieberman are hard at work on their tripartisan proposal. As the EPA proceeds with its greenhouse gas regulations, Congress remains far from completing its work, and we are left with no choice but to shift at least part of our focus to halting the EPA's efforts.

As I have stated before, my goals here are twofold: to ensure that Congress has sufficient time to work on climate legislation and to ensure that the worst of options, which is a massive expansion of the Clean Air Act, does not occur before that task is finished.

In addition to the Senators who have signed on as cosponsors of our bipartisan resolution, there are a variety of stakeholders who have expressed strong support for slowing or stopping the EPA from issuing its greenhouse gas regulations. Many of these comments have focused on the tailoring proposal, while others oppose the endangerment finding itself.

Some at the outer edges of the environmental community, obviously, disagree. But I think much of the rest of America--including State officials, businesses, farmers, and taxpayer advocates--all share our belief that the Clean Air Act should not be used to regulate emissions.

I would like to give you a few examples.

The Governor of Alaska, Sean Parnell, has written:

The fundamental question posed by the proposed rule is whether greenhouse gases can be effectively regulated under the Clean Air Act. We think not. Attempting to force fit the Clean Air Act to the purpose of regulating greenhouse gases will be ineffective and will negatively impact Alaska. ..... The proposed rule would bury Alaska's businesses, institutions, and the State's environmental agencies in regulatory burden.

The Governor of Mississippi, Haley Barbour, has written:

Regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act will undoubtedly increase the cost of energy, increase the cost of doing business, increase the cost of consumer products, and jeopardize millions of jobs by putting U.S. manufacturers at a disadvantage against foreign competitors.

The Governor of West Virginia, Joe Manchin, commented:

At a time when our state is fighting to save jobs and stabilize the economy, we cannot afford to act carelessly. EPA has taken a risky and unprecedented step in promulgating this rule. The regulation of greenhouse gas emissions is a matter that should be left to Congress, and EPA would be wise to seek Congressional action instead of attempting to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

Even the California Energy Commission, based in the State with the strictest environmental standards, felt compelled to weigh in because, as they state, ``EPA's proposed PSD tailoring threshold jeopardizes California's renewable energy strategy.'' So instead of speeding the transition to cleaner energy, California is actually worried that the EPA's proposals will actually slow down their progress.

Dozens of State Governors and attorneys general have submitted comments opposing at least one of the EPA's regulations. But comments from our elected officials are not the half of it.

The National Taxpayers Union has issued a press release that says, in part:

At a time when taxpayers are feeling the biggest squeeze since the Great Depression, it's unconscionable that Congress is responding with regulatory and legislative proposals that will only make matters worse.

Then, in a letter that was delivered to me just yesterday, the American Farm Bureau Federation wrote that its delegates have unanimously adopted a resolution that ``strongly supports any legislative action that would suspend EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.''

The letter goes on to assert that:

How carbon emissions should be regulated is a matter to be decided by elected officials; that debate is now ongoing on Capitol Hill. It is there that these policy questions should be answered.

Finally, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy has concluded that the EPA's greenhouse gas rules will likely have a ``significant economic impact upon a substantial number of small entities. ..... Small businesses, small communities, and small non-profit associations will be affected either immediately or in the near-term.''

As public awareness of our bipartisan disapproval resolution grows in the days ahead, I expect there will be many more statements that will be issued in support of its passage. While there is an extremely vocal minority that does not support it, I do hope my Senate colleagues will look at the broad coalition that does and join us to oppose the EPA's regulations.

Before I wrap up, Mr. President, I would also like to address the criticisms and arguments that have been made by those who oppose my efforts. I would like to address four of the latest claims in hopes of putting them to rest.

First of all, I would like to reiterate that our bipartisan disapproval resolution deals with the EPA's current interpretation of the Clean Air Act and has nothing to do with the science of global climate change. I would also remind my critics that I cosponsored a cap-and-trade bill in the last Congress and last year worked with the members of the Senate Energy Committee to craft a bipartisan clean energy bill. That bill, unfortunately, has been languishing on the Senate calendar for nearly 8 months now, just waiting to be called up and considered, which I think is a real shame because it would lead to significant emissions reductions and greater energy security for our country.

I would also like to address a rather creative claim that has been made that somehow I am attempting to ``gut'' the Clean Air Act or subvert it into a ``Dirty Air Act.'' I have to admit, when I first saw this, it actually made me laugh because it is so wildly inaccurate. Neither my previous amendment nor this resolution would have any effect on pollution standards and controls. Neither would change a single word of the current statute. My resolution would simply prevent the massive, unwarranted expansion of this statute by halting the EPA's efforts to use it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions--a purpose for which it was never intended, and a role that it simply cannot fulfill without serious and detrimental consequences.

It has also been stated that this resolution will somehow--somehow--prevent Congress from working constructively on climate legislation this year. Not the case. My resolution will restrain the EPA's ability to issue greenhouse gas regulations, but it will have absolutely no bearing on Congress's ability to debate climate policy. It is especially ironic that these comments were made by the Senator who has complete control of the Senate calendar. So if climate legislation does not come up this year, it is abundantly clear to me who will have made that decision.

The last claim I would like to address is the allegation about who helped draft my September amendment, which I might remind colleagues was never offered and is no longer on the table. Not only are those allegations categorically false, but they highlight--they highlight--the unwillingness of opponents of this measure to engage in the real policy discussion we should be having. The question so many of the individuals and groups opposed to my efforts have failed entirely to answer is if they honestly think--if they honestly think--that EPA climate regulations under the Clean Air Act would be good or bad for America.

I hope the debate over this resolution will stay rooted in substance. There is plenty of substance for us to debate. There is a legitimate and a substantive debate to be had about whether the EPA should be allowed to issue these regulations before Congress has had an opportunity to fully debate the issue of climate change. In my mind, the answer is no. Congress must be given the time it needs to develop a responsible policy that protects both the environment and the economy.

We are not incapable or even unwilling to legislate on this topic. So far, this Congress has merely failed to develop a balanced measure that draws enough support to be signed into law. We can remedy that shortcoming, and I remain committed to playing a constructive role in that effort.

I believe the looming specter of EPA regulations is actually a big part of the reason we have had difficulty moving forward on climate legislation. Even though we know that some approaches for reducing emissions are greatly inferior to others, there is inexplicable resistance to removing even our worst option from consideration.

I have not heard one Member--one Member--say he or she prefers regulation over legislation. I have not heard one Member say that. Yet that option is not only still around, but it is also closer than ever to becoming reality. As long as it remains out there, it will be plan B for those who wish to address climate change at any cost. If this issue has become so politicized that some Members would

support EPA regulation instead of a legislative effort aimed at passing a bipartisan bill, that would not only be a tragedy for our constituents but I believe also a sad day for us in the Senate.

If we are serious about fulfilling our duty to our constituents and giving this issue the full debate it deserves, we should take the EPA regulations off the table. Without a backstop that says ``emissions will be reduced, one way or another, no matter how painful,'' supports of climate legislation would have to get serious about finding common ground and bipartisan cosponsors.

Major environmental legislation such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act all faced opposition at the outset. That is no secret or surprise. But Members worked together to resolve concerns instead of threatening to take a different and more damaging course.

As Senator Ed Muskie would later write, the Clean Air Act ``was passed unanimously after just two days on the floor,'' which prompted Senator Eugene McCarthy to remark that he had ``finally found an issue better than motherhood--and some people are even against motherhood.'' The Clean Water Act passed by a vote of 86 to 0, and the Safe Drinking Water Act did not even require a rollcall vote. It was passed by voice vote.

The Senate has a history of coming together to overwhelmingly support commonsense environmental legislation. But today, however, as we seek the best way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we are being presented with a false choice between unacceptable legislation and unacceptable regulations. We are being told--threatened really--to pass a bill now or the economy will suffer. A number of Senators are trying to develop bills that can be signed into law, but even as that work continues, the EPA's endangerment finding has opened the door to further economic damage.

I believe Congress must take that option off the table, and we can do that by approving the bipartisan disapproval resolution that 39 Senators have now submitted. Allowing the EPA to proceed will endanger jobs, our economy, and our global competitiveness. That should be an outcome we can all agree to avoid.

If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then you can vote to oppose our resolution. But if you share our concerns and you believe climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source