Resolution of Disapproval of EPA Rule--Motion to Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from Alaska for her leadership on this issue. This is an important debate to have, and I wish to remind my colleagues what this debate is about because I have heard lots of discussion on the floor today about how this is somehow about the science of climate change.

This isn't about the science of climate change. Maybe we ought to have that debate. Perhaps that is something we should debate, but that is not what this debate is about. This debate is also not about some of the other issues that have been thrown out here--that this is about big oil or this is about the Republicans wanting to delay or protect somehow the status quo. That is not what this debate is about. This is a very simple, straightforward question. That question is, Do we, the U.S. Senate, want to be on the record with regard to the issue of whether the EPA ought to move forward and try to regulate CO

2 emissions under the Clean Air Act or should we wait until Congress takes up and deals with that issue?

What is ironic about what my colleagues on the other side are suggesting is that a lot of people have said that Republicans just want to delay; they want to delay because they do not believe in the science. Well, we don't control the agenda; the Democratic leader controls the agenda. They have a climate change bill they could bring to the floor and we could debate it. They do not want to do that because they don't want to put a lot of their Democrats on record on that vote. So what do they do instead? We allow the EPA--a bunch of unelected bureaucrats--to move forward and do something that would have tremendous consequence to the American economy without hearing from the Congress.

I think that, in a very simple, straightforward manner, is what this debate is about. It is about, do we want the EPA to move forward with the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions absent direction from the Congress--the people's representatives--or do the voices of the people need to be heard through the debate we ought to be having here in the Congress?

I will say that irrespective of what you believe about the science behind climate change and whether or not human activity is contributing to it, one thing we know with great certainty is that it will have profound economic impacts on the American economy.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. THUNE. I will yield at the conclusion of my remarks to the Senator from Massachusetts, but I have some things to get to before that.

Mr. President, what is important is that everyone acknowledges, including the Obama administration, that moving forward with the EPA regulating CO

2 emissions under the Clean Air Act would cause the economy to suffer.

I want to quote something the Office of Management and Budget put out last August in a document. It says:

Regulating CO 2 under the Clean Air Act for the time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.

If you look at the impact on small businesses, farms, and ranches, the proponents are going to say: Well, the EPA is not intending to regulate smaller entities like that; we just want to get the big polluters. OK. We start at 100,000 tons. Well, in 2012, we move to 50,000 tons.

I would argue--and it is supported by statements made by folks in the administration--the EPA Administrator has indicated that by 2016, they intend to regulate smaller emitters, if we get to 2016, because what will happen is this so-called tailoring rule will get challenged in the courts and it will likely get overturned because the Clean Air Act said the threshold for regulation is 250 tons.

At 250 tons, you don't get just the big emitters. You don't get the large polluters. You get over 6 million entities, to include farms, ranches, small businesses, churches, hospitals, and you can go right down the list. That is what happens when you regulate at the 250-ton level. As I said, they are saying that is not going to happen, that we have this tailoring rule. Well, the law is very clear. If we are going to use the Clean Air Act as the authority to do this, the Clean Air Act stipulates 250 tons. That captures a whole lot of entities that strike at the very heart of the American economy.

The cap-and-trade legislation that was passed by the House last summer has yet to be voted on here in the Senate, but there has been a lot of analysis of that done in my State of South Dakota. The public utilities commission in my State suggested that, if passed, that would increase power rates in States such as South Dakota by 50 percent.

If you look at what the actual impacts are going to be on small businesses across this country--not only because of the cost of the original construction permits that would be included in this but also operating permits--the Wall Street Journal said in a May 2009 story that in 2007 the Clean Air Act cost those who had to apply for permits $125,000 per permit and 866 hours to obtain it.

So whether you subscribe to the notion that this is only going to apply to large entities or whether you subscribe, as I do, to the belief that this is ultimately going to cover a lot more smaller entities that are going to be adversely impacted and deal with much higher power rates, I think it is pretty clear that whoever is covered by these new regulations is going to be faced with a lot higher costs when it comes to permits, a lot higher costs when it comes to the implementation of best available technology, and therefore a lot higher cost to the American consumer who will deal with the burden of that when it is passed on by these various emitting entities.

My State of South Dakota, of course, is composed of a lot of farmers and ranchers. Agriculture is a 45-percent energy-intensive business, if you look at the inputs that are necessary to make a living in a farm or ranch operation. That means 45 percent of a farmer or rancher's costs are going to be increased by this backdoor energy tax imposed by the EPA. The fees and fines that are placed upon machinery manufacturers, energy companies, and fertilizer companies starting in 2011 and 2012 will be immediately passed down to the farm and ranch families who are going to be impacted by this.

If the EPA is forced to regulate at the statutory 250-ton threshold--which, as I said, once this is litigated I believe that is what the courts are going to find--farms with as few as 25 dairy cattle would be forced to apply for a title 5 permit and pay a fee for each ton of greenhouse gases emitted by their cattle: the cow tax. That is what this is about. This is not, as I said, about the science of climate change. It is not about Republicans wanting to delay. We don't control the agenda around here. It is not about big oil. It is about small businesses, family farms, and ranches trying to make a living, trying to create jobs in the economy and constantly having Washington stand in the way and throw new hurdles and impediments and obstacles and barriers in their way.

What the Murkowski resolution does, very simply, is it forces us to answer a fundamental question and that is should Congress be acting on legislation that would direct these activities or do we allow a bunch of unelected bureaucrats at an agency downtown to move forward with regulations that would impose massive new costs on the American economy at a time when we are trying to create jobs and get this economy on its feet. That is the straightforward, simple question put forward by the resolution from the Senator from Alaska.

I hope my colleagues here realize, irrespective of what they think about the science of climate change, irrespective of all the other arguments that are being used as a distraction here on big oil and Republicans delaying this debate, when you get down to the fundamental question, that is what the issue is, whether this Senate wants to be on record about allowing a bunch of unelected bureaucrats to move forward with the regulations that would impose massive new costs on our economy, not just on big polluters, large polluters--who, by the way, are going to pass those costs on--but directly hitting the small businesses, farms, the ranches that are the very backbone of the American economy.

This is not, by the way, just a Republican issue. There are lots of Democrats who have weighed in on this and there are lots of Democrats I believe here in the Senate today who I hope will be willing to support this resolution. But I want to read for you very quickly here, because I know my time is running out, a couple of things that have been said by Democrats in the House of Representatives. COLLIN PETERSON, a Congressman from Minnesota, has said:

The Clean Air Act was never meant to be used for this but they're trying to do it anyway. ..... Most everyone I've heard from about this thinks that elected officials--not EPA bureaucrats--should decide how to address our energy problems.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.

Mr. THUNE. JOHN DINGELL called this a ``glorious mess,'' if the EPA moves forward with this. I have other statements from the Democratic Members of the House of Representatives which I will be happy to submit for the Record, as well as a letter from a bunch of Representatives in my State supporting the Murkowski resolution.

I yield my time and hope my colleagues will support this resolution.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source