Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his observations about health care and more particularly about jobs.

We are talking about a 13th extension now of unemployment insurance benefits which, in my view, does treat a symptom, but it doesn't do anything to address the underlying cause. The cause is we have too many people in this country who are out of the work, which means we need to create more jobs, and that means making it less expensive and less difficult to hire people, not driving up the cost of hiring.

The Senator from Wyoming has just touched on one of the issues that is affecting hiring in this country; that is, ObamaCare.

You can say what you want--and the other side may have some stories, which we will not dispute, unlike when we come up here and we share the stories, the real-life stories of some of our constituents, and then we have the majority leader of the Senate say those stories aren't true, those stories are all made up. Then he came to the floor
last week in response to more bad news about ObamaCare and said the reason people aren't signing up for it is they just aren't educated enough about the Internet.

What he is essentially saying is that the people of this country, No. 1, aren't telling the truth and; No. 2, aren't very smart. That is not what I believe and I don't think that is what any of my colleagues believe.

We do believe there are things we ought to be doing to get Americans back to work. Repealing ObamaCare would be a good place to start because it is making the cost of growing your business, expanding your business in this country, dramatically higher. It is also raising the premiums and the deductibles for people all across this country, for middle-class families, and giving them fewer options when it comes to doctors and to hospitals.

I want to talk just briefly, if I might, about the cost of overregulation and what it is doing to our economy.

We have had an opportunity during this discussion on unemployment insurance to talk about some of the things that we would do if we would be given a chance to offer amendments. Typically, the case around here, what happens, the practice and pattern of late is that the majority leader fills the tree and blocks us from offering amendments. We have a lot of Members on our side who have great ideas about things that would actually create jobs, actually grow the economy. One of the things we know is costing jobs and hurting the economy is the cost of overregulation, destroying jobs and making it more difficult for our job creators.

In fact, the estimate is it is almost one-half trillion dollars in the cost of regulations since the President has come to office--almost one-half trillion dollars added--added cost in this country. That figure is larger than the entire economy of Peru. It is larger than the entire economy of Sweden. Think about that. The cost of regulation in this country since this President has come to office is larger than the entire economies of either Sweden or Peru.

One of the largest contributors to these new regulations and compliance costs is the EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency. They came out with the Boiler MACT regulations, they came out with the Utility MACT regulations, and they came out with tier 3 fuel standards. All of these things that the EPA has finalized are some of the most costly regulations we have seen from any agency in recent history.

These rules will impose billions of dollars in costs on energy producers and manufacturers, which are going to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Unfortunately, for consumers already hurting in the Obama economy, more bad news is on the way. The EPA is currently working on regulations for ozone standards, greenhouse gas emissions for powerplants, and a dramatic expansion of the Clean Water Act that will reach into ditches and gullies all across America.

I would like to briefly touch on the impacts EPA mandates, including greenhouse gas standards, regional haze requirements, Utility MACT, and Boiler MACT, are having on energy prices back in my home State of South Dakota. Unfortunately, South Dakotans are on the frontlines of this administration's war on affordable energy.

In 2008, then-Senator Obama promised to make energy prices skyrocket. Today, in my home State, he is fulfilling that promise. Just Monday Black Hills Power, a utility company in western South Dakota, announced a proposed rate increase to cover the cost of new EPA mandates. If that rate increase is approved, the average customer's rates will increase by $130 a year. For a family living in western South Dakota, $130 can go a long way toward putting food on the table or making a car payment.

South Dakota is a rural State with energy-intensive manufacturing and agricultural sectors of our economy. Families have to travel long distances. We are a cold-weather climate. We see dramatic swings in seasonal temperatures that create uncertainty when opening monthly utility bills. Unfortunately, the EPA's backdoor energy tax, which is already beginning to hit South Dakota's families, is about to get even more expensive.

The tier 3 gasoline standards, greenhouse gas regulations, and new ozone rules are a train wreck of new regulations that are going to further drive up energy costs and destroy jobs. That is why I have offered two commonsense amendments to rein in these costly EPA regulations.

The first amendment would require Congress to approve any EPA regulation with a projected cost of more than $50 million a year. If Congress rejects that rule, the EPA would be forced to go back to the drawing board and pursue less costly alternatives.

From regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act to regulating streams and ditches under the Clean Water Act, this EPA stretches authority well beyond what Congress intended when we created a Federal-State environment regulatory structure decades ago. This EPA needs to be reined in, and the best way to do that is by creating congressional oversight of major regulations.

My second amendment would create another check on the EPA's ever-expanding regulatory reach. This would require the Department of Energy and the Government Accountability Office to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of EPA's proposed greenhouse gas regulations on powerplants.

If, based on this study, the DOE, the Department of Energy, or GAO determined that the new regulations would raise energy prices or destroy jobs, the new regulations could not take effect. The EPA could still propose new regulations on new and existing powerplants, but those regulations couldn't be finalized until it certified that those new rules would not negatively impact jobs or energy costs.

We have over 10 million people who remain unemployed. Economic growth and job creation remain stagnant and middle-class incomes have dropped by $3,000 per family over the past 5 years. The last thing middle-class families need is for their pocketbooks to be further stretched by misguided government policies that drive up energy costs. It is time to put a check on the EPA.

It is time to have an open debate, an amendment process on commonsense proposals to increase congressional oversight, and it is time to put consumers ahead of liberal environmental groups.

I encourage my colleagues on the floor with me today to continue pushing for policies that make energy more abundant and more affordable. Unlike the heavyhanded regulations we have seen from the Obama administration, these policies will actually create jobs and help grow the middle class. I will continue fighting, along with my colleagues joining me on the floor today, to make sure we get votes on these policies and begin to rein in the out-of-control regulations from the Obama administration.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

I thank my colleague from Missouri.

Senator Blunt and I have, as he said, worked very hard when it comes to the overreach of government agencies and the burdens of regulations, the cost of regulations and what that is doing to a lot of middle-class families and their pocketbooks.

I mentioned earlier a couple of amendments I had filed here that pertained to energy costs in my home State of South Dakota, one of which sets a $50 million threshold over which a regulation proposed by the EPA would have to be voted on by the Congress of the United States, and if Congress rejected it, the EPA would have to go back to the drawing board to come up with an alternative approach. That amendment is amendment No. 2895, and I think it fits perfectly with what we are talking about today, which is growing our economy, creating jobs, and trying to do what actually would get people back to work. Certainly, the burdensome cost of regulation is a tremendous deterrent and impediment to job creation in this country.

I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to offer my amendment No. 2895.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source