SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2011--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Small Business Committee, as well as the ranking member, for their work on this legislation. Senator Landrieu has spoken about the necessity, particularly in this environment today, as we are coming out of a recession, to ensure we have a conducive environment for our small businesses to thrive. It is not just about incentives and opportunities, it is that business environment.

One of the things I think is important for us as policymakers to look at is those things that are put in place that perhaps smother our businesses, whether it is through regulation or the cost of permitting, but also those things that create uncertainty. That is what I would like to speak to for just a few minutes this afternoon.

The minority leader put forth an amendment several hours ago that would put a stop to the EPA's command-and-control climate regulations. This is an amendment for which I am rising today to offer my support. This is not the first time I have had an opportunity to be here on the Senate floor to speak about my concern about the agency advancing policies ahead of the Congress; of the EPA advancing regulations that set climate policy--again, before the Congress had acted. We spent a considerable amount of time here last year discussing the pitfalls of EPA's massive and unprecedented expansion of regulatory powers as they sought to advance those regulations that would impose that uncertainty on our businesses.

I remain as convinced now as I was when we had the arguments previously, when we were talking about this resolution of disapproval against the EPA, I remain as convinced as ever that EPA's efforts to impose these backdoor climate regulations is the wrong way, and perhaps it is the worst way to address our Nation's energy and climate challenges.

Our country is struggling to recover from the worst economic downturn in our modern history. We talk daily about the need for us, as lawmakers, to advance those policies that will help our Nation restore job growth. All this is going on in the midst of global events that are clearly out of our control. We have chaotic global events that have driven our energy prices to near 2-year highs. The last thing in the world for us to do would be to allow unelected bureaucrats to impose new economic burdens on our families and on our businesses.

In combination with these recent events overseas, the EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases is contributing to increased energy prices. The proliferation, the numbers are astounding in terms of what the EPA is advancing in terms of these regulations that hit our businesses every day. The proliferation of EPA rulemaking on climate change is creating pervasive uncertainty throughout our economy. It has stymied and delayed new investments in energy production and this will only become worse once the temporary relief provided by the EPA's ``tailoring rule'' is tossed out by the courts or perhaps ratcheted down by EPA's own timeline.

What is most troubling is that the EPA has consistently failed to consider what the economic impact of their rulemaking is. We have asked repeatedly. Yet there is no response back from the EPA. It is kind of a shell game that we have seen moving forward. First, the EPA claimed its endangerment finding is simply a scientific finding, it is nothing more; there is not going to be any regulatory burden that will be created as a result of this.

Then we saw a deal struck between the automakers and the State of California and the environmentalists and the EPA to tie emissions standards to already enacted mileage increases for light-duty vehicles. That move then triggered regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act for all emitters, including stationary sources. But here again there was no economic analysis provided by the EPA. A lack of this analysis or this assessment and the lack of information led many Members of Congress, myself included, to repeatedly ask for a study of the potential impacts. But EPA has disregarded these requests. Finally, they published their tailoring rule, which was not only finished without a real economic analysis, but it was somewhat brazenly pitched as regulatory relief. They first said this was not a burden that had been imposed, and then they come back and say now we are providing regulatory relief. That is kind of an odd claim to have made.

But what became clear throughout all of this is that the EPA wants us to believe that none of their actions have imposed new regulatory requirements and therefore there is no cost. If we have not added any regulatory burden there is not going to be any subsequent cost.

But this assertion simply denies logic. Their regulations require that expensive new permits be obtained. To do that you have expensive new technologies that have to be purchased, installed, and operated.

In the next few years these requirements will become more severe and more businesses will be folded in to face them. To accept these economy-wide climate regulations with no substantive analysis of their economic impacts is to take a huge gamble with an already fragile American economy. This is a gamble that I believe we should not take. The amendment from the minority leader that was presented earlier today would ensure that we do not.

As I mentioned just starting off on my comments, I think it is fitting that this debate does take place on legislation that is designed to help our small businesses. It is true that because the EPA has decided they are not going to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act--but not according to it--they are not going to regulate the small businesses at this point in time. Soon, however, they are going to be caught up in the same net as their larger counterparts. In the meantime, as the customers of the refiners and powerplants throughout the country that are now regulated, our small businesses will inevitably face increased costs. Innovation should not mean having to find creative ways to comply with government regulations in order to keep your doors open.

Fortunately, it is not too late to prevent this situation from becoming worse. The first round of regulations kicked in at the start of this year, and then the so-called New Source Performance Standards for refineries and powerplants, one of the next steps in the EPA's regulatory process, are not expected until later this year. We can and we should step in now to prevent this additional growth of the now sweeping regulatory burden from the EPA. If we do not act now, if we fail to act now, America's competitive position in the world will continue to deteriorate.

This should be cause for concern for all of us serving here in the Congress. Unfortunately, we have not only failed to put a stop to this agenda but some have actually embraced it. Explanations are out there, I am sure. Perhaps the most common is a misplaced hope that by forcing consumers to pay more for energy, somehow or other this is going to usher in the green jobs to manufacture the wind turbines and other equipment that can just as easily be made overseas. It is this kind of thinking that brought us to where we were last year, or the year before, with the tremendously unpopular cap-and-trade bill.

For too many in this town, here in Washington, DC, higher energy prices have been an explicit goal. The President, when the cap-and-trade proposal was being debated, very clearly stated--his words--``electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.''

The Secretary of Energy has said a couple of years ago, ``Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.'' Notably, I think those comments were made when gasoline was even more expensive than it is today.

But every Member of this Chamber should recognize where EPA is going with these regulations. They are the administration's plan B, initially meant to force us here in Congress to pass cap-and-trade and now of course substitute for it. I think the question that is worth asking is, if cap-and-trade could not pass for lack of support, why should we let these regulations replace them? If we would not agree to a legislative program because it was too damaging, why would we let command-and-control regulations, pressed into place through rulemakings, be the answer instead?

If we knew these regulations are a bad idea whose time should not have come, why--why--would we let American families and businesses suffer greater and greater consequences?

In the midst of our economic recovery and high energy prices, we need to protect our small businesses, not expose them to new regulatory burdens. I think the amendment of the minority leader would do just that. I am hopeful the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on it and pass it within the near future.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source