Resolution Of Disapproval Of EPA Rule-Motion To Proceed

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. I think my colleague makes a key point. My colleague from Idaho has been discussing what has been described as the worst disaster in American history, and it is what is happening right today in the Gulf of Mexico. Should the Environmental Protection Agency maybe be focusing its efforts there, where we know there is a real problem, a real job to be done, real concerns, and the American people are looking or should the Environmental Protection Agency spend its time and spend our resources driving up the cost of energy and doing it with the idea that perhaps 100 years from now it might make a difference? The efforts ought to be placed today where the efforts are needed most. The Environmental Protection Agency ought to be focused on the gulf, not on something that theoretically may make a difference 100 years from now.

At a time when emissions are going up in China and going up in India and going up in Russia, going up all around the world, the Environmental Protection Agency says: I want to handcuff the American economy, handcuff the small businesses of this country. At a time with 9.7 percent unemployment, let's make it tougher on Americans--that is what the Environmental Protection Agency wants to do. If this Senate goes ahead and defeats the Murkowski amendment, they will be saying exactly the same thing. We are going to make it tougher on small businesses.

For the small businesses in the western part of the country, we have our small refiners, we have our agricultural folks, tourism folks--all of the different people as part of the Western Caucus. What is this impact going to do to you? What is your position? We contacted agricultural groups all around the West. Look at this map of the United States. More than half of the square miles of the United States included in here support the Murkowski resolution because they know it is key to their economy. It is key to those parts of the country. It is key to agriculture. It is key to energy production. And it is key to families who are trying to balance their budgets, live within their means. They do not want to see an increase in taxes, which is what this is--an increase in energy costs at a time of 9.7 percent unemployment.

I tell you, I am here to support the Murkowski resolution of disapproval. The EPA's endangerment finding starts the process of taxing everything Americans do: driving cars, heating homes, powering small businesses. This will cost millions of Americans their jobs.

It is fascinating. The Small Business Administration wrote to the EPA a couple of times reminding the Environmental Protection Agency to stop the endangerment finding and look at its impact on small businesses, on small communities. The SBA basically said: Comply with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the law meant to protect small businesses from excessive regulation from Washington.

I will tell you, when you talk about excessive regulations from Washington, we have seen them in the last year and a half. This bedrock law was meant to protect the ranchers, the small refiners around the States, restaurant owners in Utah, dairy farmers--you name it. But with unemployment hovering at about 9.7 percent, it is unacceptable that the Environmental Protection Agency has failed to evaluate the impact of greenhouse gas regulations on the small businesses and the communities across America. Who grows jobs in America? Small businesses. In the last 15 years, small business owners have been responsible for 64 percent of all job creation in America. But additional regulations, additional rules, additional taxes make it that much harder.

Is it going to actually have an impact on the global environment? No, not at all, not when you take a look at what is happening in China, where their emissions are going to go up every year all the way through 2050. India's emissions are going up; more and more energy is being used. If you want to use energy well, the United States does the best job in using it efficiently.

It just seems that when I go home on weekends to Wyoming--and I will be there again tomorrow--and I talk to people in various parts of the State, they say: What are they thinking back in Washington? Why are they going to make it harder for us to compete? Why are they going to make it harder for us economically?

The food producers in our Nation compete globally to sell food products, and they do it in a way where we need to use energy. Agriculture is a hugely energy-intense operation, and anything that increases the costs of producing that food is going to get passed on to consumers in this country and consumers in other nations as we go ahead and try to compete and sell our products overseas.

It does seem that this EPA endangerment rule will ruin the small business engine that drives the economy on jobs.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source