Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
QUORUM CALL:
THE --
I --
I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FOR RECOGNIZING ME.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT
ABOUT THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT
THAT I THINK WE'LL VOTE ON ON --
ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE THIS
WEEK.
THIS IS AN AMENDMENT THAT REALLY
CLARIFIES WHETHER OR NOT
CONGRESS EVER INTENDED TO GIVE
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE
GREENHOUSE GASES.
THEY HAVE A FINDING THAT GIVES
THEMSELVES THAT AUTHORITY, BUT
THE PEOPLE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN
PASSING THAT LAW INITIALLY SAY
THAT THAT WASN'T THE INTENTION
OF THE LAW.
IF IT IS THE INTENTION OF THE
LAW, THAT CONGRESS SHOULD STEP
UP AND CLARIFY THAT.
BUT I THINK THIS AMENDMENT
CLEARLY EXPRESSES THE VIEW OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE THAT THE
CONGRESS SHOULD DO ITS JOB, NOT
LEAVE IT TO THE REGULATORS TO DO
THE JOB.
AND SENATOR McCONNELL HAS
BROUGHT THAT AMENDMENT TO THE
FLOOR, BUT IT'S AN AMENDMENT
THAT SENATOR INHOFE HAS WORKED
ON THIS TOPIC FOR A LONG TIME.
SENATOR BARRASSO HAS WORKED ON
THIS TOPIC A LONG TIME.
AND I'M CONVINCED AS THE BALLOTS
ARE CAST, AS THE VOTES ARE MADE
THIS WEEK ON THIS BILL, THAT --
ON THIS AMENDMENT THAT SENATORS
FROM BOTH PARTIES ARE GOING TO
SAY, NO, THAT'S TO THIS THE JOB
OF THE E.P.A.
IT'S NOT WHAT THE CONGRESS
INTENDED THE E.P.A. TO DO.
AND THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF
THE CONGRESS TRYING TO STEP UP
AND MAKE THE POINT THAT PEOPLE
SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THE --
THE REGULATORS SHOULDN'T BE ABLE
TO DO BY REGULATION WHAT THE
LEGISLATORS ARE UNWILLING TO DO
BY LEGISLATION.
AS THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED LAST
YEAR, THE CAP AND --
CAP-AND-TRADE LAW THAT PASSED
THE HOUSE IN THE LAST CONGRESS,
PEOPLE AROUND AMERICA LOOKED AT
THIS AND SAID HIGHER PRICES ARE
ARE NOT THE WAY TO GET -- TO GET
MORE EFFICIENT ENERGY POLICIES.
THE WAY TO GET MORE EFFICIENT
ENERGY POLICIES IS TO LOOK FOR
WAYS TO PRODUCE MORE AMERICAN
ENERGY, TO HAVE A MARKETPLACE
THAT HAS MORE CHOICES THAN WE
HAVE NOW.
AS PEOPLE LOOKED AT THIS ISSUE,
THEY SAID, NO, LET'S FIND MORE
AMERICAN ENERGY OF ALL KINDS.
LET'S BE CONSERVATIONISTS AND
ENCOURAGE THAT WE USE THAT
ENERGY IN THE MOST EFFICIENT,
POSSIBLE WAY, AND LET'S ALSO BE
OUT THERE RESEARCHING AND
INVESTING IN THE FUTURE SO THAT
WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT OUR ENERGY
PICTURE TO LOOK LIKE A
GENERATION FROM NOW.
NOT THAT WE BLINDLY RUSH IN AND
THINK THAT HIGH PRICES WILL
SOLVE OUR ENERGY PROBLEMS.
MR. PRESIDENT, WE ALL KNOW THAT
THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED
STATES, BEFORE THE ELECTION IN
2008, IN TALKING TO THE
EDITORIAL BOARD OF "THE "SAN
FRANCISCO CHRONICLE"" MADE THE
COMMENT THAT UNDER HIS ENERGY
POLICIES, ENERGY PRICES WOULD
NECESSARILY SKYROCKET.
BUT THE PRESIDENT LOOKED AT THIS
ECONOMY CLOSELY, I HOPE, OVER
THE LAST TWO YEARS OF HIS
PRESIDENCY AND CLEARLY EVERY
SIGNAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATION
NOW IS THAT THEY HAVE CONCERNS
ABOUT $4-A-GALLON GASOLINE EVEN
THOUGH THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THAT
ADVISORY GROUP WHO AT ONE TIME
SAID, GAS PRICES SHOULD BE AS
HIGH AS THE GAS PRICES IN
EUROPE.
THAT'S THE WAY TO SOLVE OUR USE
OF GASOLINE.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T LIVE IN
EUROPE.
WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT IS
LARGE AND EXPANSIVE AND REQUIRES
TRAVEL AND REQUIRES COMMERCE,
AND SO HIGH GAS PRICES ARE NOT
THE ANSWER TO OUR TRANSPORTATION
PROBLEMS.
AND HIGHER UTILITY BILLS ARE ARE
NOT THE ANSWER TO OUR ENERGY
PROBLEMS.
IN FACT, AS PEOPLE LOOKED AT THE
POTENTIAL OF CAP-AND-TRADE ON --
ON UTILITY BILLS, THEY LOOKED AT
HOW MUCH OF OUR UTILITIES COME
FROM COAL.
AND, OF COURSE, CAP AND TRADE,
AS WOULD BE E.P.A. REGULATIONS
THAT WOULD TRY TO IMPOSE CAP AND
TRADE BY REGULATION, CAP AND
TRADE IS PARTICULARLY FOCUSED AT
COAL-BASED UTILITIES.
MR. PRESIDENT, FROM THE MIDDLE
OF PENNSYLVANIA TO THE WESTERN
EDGE OF WYOMING, 50% OF THE --
OF THE ELECTRICITY IN THE
COUNTRY COMES FROM COAL.
IN YOUR STATE AND MY STATE A
SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF THE
ELECTRICITY COMES FROM COAL.
AND -- IN MISSOURI IT'S 82% OF
THE ELECTRICITY COMES FROM COAL.
AND IN OUR STATE THE UTILITY
PROVIDERS WENT TOGETHER, THE --
THE RURAL ELECTRIC COOP TIFS,
THE -- COOPERATIVES, THE
MUNICIPAL UTILITIES FUNDED A
STUDY THAT NO ONE HAS EVER FOUND
FAULT WITH, NO ONE CHALLENGED
THE STUDY, AND THAT STUDY IN OUR
STATE THE AVERAGE UTILITY BILL
WOULD GO UP 80% IN THE FIRST 10
YEARS UNDER CAP AND TRADE.
IT WOULD COME CLOSE TO DOUBLING
IN THE FIRST 12 YEARS.
FOR MANY IT WOULD DOUBLE IF THE
AVERAGE BILL IS GOING TO GO UP
80%, FOR MANY OF THE CUSTOMERS
OUT THERE, THEIR BILL WOULD
DOUBLE IN 10 YEARS AND -- FOR
THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER IT WOULD
DOUBLE IN ABOUT A DOZEN YEARS
AND WHO BENEFITS FROM THAT?
AT A HEARING THE OTHER DAY WITH
THE E.P.A. ADMINISTRATOR, I
TALKED ABOUT A VISIT I HAD LAST
FALL WITH SOMEONE WHO EXPLAINED
TO ME HE WAS AN HOURLY EMPLOYEE
AT A COMPANY AND BY THAT POINT
WITH THE DISCUSSION OF CAP AND
TRADE, ALMOST ALL MISSOURIANS
KNEW THAT BILLS WOULD DOUBLE IN
10 YEARS.
HE SAID TO ME, MR. PRESIDENT, IF
MY UTILITY BILL DOUBLES, THAT'S
A BAD THING.
IF MY MOTHER'S RETIRED UTILITY
BILL DOUBLES, THAT'S A WORSE
THING.
IF MY JOB BILLS DOUBLE, I CAN'T
PAY HERS.
PAY MINE AND I CAN'T HELP MY MOM
HE HAD A PH.D. IN COMMON SENSE
IF NOT IN ECONOMICS.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IF WE ALLOW
THESE BILLS TO GO UP.
BECAUSE OF THAT DISCUSSION, I
STAND HERE TODAY ABSOLUTELY
CONFIDENT THAT IN THE
FORESEEABLE FUTURE THAT CONGRESS
WILL NOT IMPOSE THAT PENALTY ON
OUR ECONOMY.
AND IF THE CONGRESS WON'T IMPOSE
THAT PENALTY ON OUR ECONOMY, WE
SHOULDN'T LET REGULATORS IMPOSE
THAT PENALTY ON OUR ECONOMY.
AND WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES --
WHAT THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT
DOES, AGAIN, WITH THE HARD WORK
OF SENATOR INHOFE AND SENATOR
BARRASSO AND OTHERS, IT JUST
SIMPLY REDEFINES THE AUTHORITY
OR MAYBE REEMPHASIS THE
DEFINITION THAT CONGRESS THOUGHT
IT WAS GIVING THE ENVIROMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY AND SAYS THAT
YOU CAN'T REGULATE THESE
GREENHOUSE GASES UNDER THE CLEAN
AIR ACT.
IT DOESN'T STOP THE CLEAN AIR
ACT'S PROVISIONS TO PROTECT
CLEAN AIR IN EVERY WAY THAT WAS
ANTICIPATED UNTIL THE RECENT
DETERMINATION THAT SOMEHOW
E.P.A. HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ALSO
REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES.
BUT IT DOES REFOCUS THE E.P.A.
ON THE INTENTION OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT, NOT THEIR EXPANSION OF
THE CLEAN AIR ACT.
AND BY THE WAY, THE E.P.A. HAS
NO ABILITY TO EXPAND THE CLEAN
AIR ACT.
THAT'S THE JOB OF THE CONGRESS
OF THE UNITED STATES.
AND FINE IF WE WANT TO HAVE THAT
DEBATE.
IN FACT, WE HAD THAT DEBATE LAST
YEAR, AND THE HOUSE PASSED A
BILL THAT WOULD HAVE DONE WHAT
THIS -- WHAT THE E.P.A.'S NEW
SENSE OF THEIR OWN MISSION WOULD
DO, AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, I
THINK, SPOKE PRETTY LOUDLY ABOUT
THAT.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE LAST
CONGRESS DIDN'T PASS THAT BILL.
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PASSED A BILL, BUT THE SENATE
DIDN'T PASS THAT BILL, AND THIS
CONGRESS ISN'T GOING TO PASS
THAT BILL EITHER, AND I WOULD
PREDICT THAT THE NEXT CONGRESS
WON'T PASS THAT BILL.
AND WHY WON'T THEY PASS THE
BILL?
CONGRESS?
WHY WON'T WE PASS A BILL IN THIS
WHY WON'T THE NEXT CONGRESS PASS
A BILL?
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT IT HAS
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON OUR
ECONOMY.
AND IF THE CONGRESS DOESN'T WANT
TO HAVE DEVASTATING IMPACT ON
OUR ECONOMY, WE ALSO SHOULDN'T
WANT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY TO HAVE
DEVASTATING IMPACT ON OUR
ECONOMY.
IN FACT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE
ECONOMIES AROUND THE WORLD, THE
ECONOMIES THAT HAVE THE GREATEST
PROBLEMS WITH AIR AND WATER ARE
THE ECONOMIES THAT FAILED, THE
ECONOMIES WHERE AT SOME POINT
THOSE COUNTRIES DECIDE
ULTIMATELY WE'RE GOING TO DO
WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET BACK TO
WHERE WE CAN HAVE THE JOBS THAT
ALLOW FAMILIES TO LIVE.
AND THE E.P.A. IS BOUND AND
SHOULD BE BOUND BY WHAT THE
CONGRESS INITIALLY INTENDED WITH
THE CLEAN AIR ACT, NOT WHAT THE
E.P.A. THINKS TODAY IS THEIR
JOB, AND PARTICULARLY IF IT'S
NOT A JOB THAT EVERYBODY IN THIS
BUILDING KNOWS THAT THE
LEGISLATORS WILL NOT DO.
AND IF THE LEGISLATORS WON'T DO
IT, THE LEGISLATORS SHOULDN'T
LET THE REGULATORS DO IT, AND
THIS SIMPLY CLARIFIES THAT.
I URGE MY COLLEAGUES THIS WEEK
TO VOTE FOR THIS AMENDMENT, TO
MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
THAT THEY HAVE PLENTY OF THINGS
TO DO, AND MANY THINGS THAT WE
WILL SUPPORT THEM AS THEY DO,
BUT THIS ISN'T ONE OF THEM.
THIS HURTS OUR ECONOMY, IT IS
NOT THEIR MISSION, IT WAS NOT
THE INTENTION OF THE CLEAN AIR
ACT, AND THIS AMENDMENT ALLOWS
THAT TO BE REINFORCED ONCE AGAIN
BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED
STATES, THE GROUP THAT'S
SUPPOSED TO PASS THE LAWS.
LAWS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE
PASSED BY REGULATORS.
I SUPPOSE THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY
DETERMINED TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY
REGULATORS BUT NOT CREATED BY
ADMINISTRATION.
REGULATORS OR CREATED BY THE
THAT'S OUR JOB.
AND WHAT THIS BILL DOES IS
RE-EMPHASIZE OUR JOB, AND AGAIN
DOESN'T LET A REGULATORY GROUP
DO A JOB THAT INCREASES THE
UTILITY BILL, THAT DOUBLES THE
ELECTRIC BILL IN MISSOURI AND
RAISES THE ELECTRIC BILL IN THE
VAST PREPONDERANCE OF AMERICA
FOR PEOPLE RETIRED ON A FIXED
INCOME, FOR JOBS THAT CLEARLY
WILL GO AWAY IF THOSE ELECTRIC
BILLS ARE RAISED, AND THEY WILL
NOT GO TO -- TO OTHER PLACES IN
THE UNITED STATES IN MOST CASES.
THEY WILL GO TO OTHER COUNTRIES
THAT CARE A WHOLE LOT LESS ABOUT
WHAT COMES OUT OF THE SMOKESTACK
THAN WE DO.
SO IF THE E.P.A. IS ALLOWED TO
DO WITH GREENHOUSE GASES WHAT IT
SAYS IT WANTS TO DO, WE WILL
LOSE THE JOBS AND THE PROBLEM
WILL GET GREATER BECAUSE THESE
JOBS WILL GO TO COUNTRIES THAT
CARE A WHOLE LOT LESS ABOUT
EMISSIONS THAN WE DO.
LET'S LET THE LEGISLATORS DO
THEIR JOB, MR. PRESIDENT, AND I
ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO VOTE
FOR THIS AMENDMENT THIS WEEK.
I AM GOING TO QUESTION A QUORUM
SO THE QUORUM CALL CAN BEGIN
AGAIN AS OUR COLLEAGUES ARE
THINKING ABOUT HOW WE APPROACH
THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE ABOUT OUR
ECONOMY AND ABOUT OUR JOBS,
ABOUT OUR FAMILIES AND ABOUT OUR
FUTURE.
I YIELD THE FLOOR,
MR. PRESIDENT.
THE CLERK
WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM KANSAS.
A SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT, I ASK
UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO DISPENSE
WITH THE QUORUM CALL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. PRESIDENT,
RIGHTFULLY SO, THE FOCUS IN THIS
CONGRESS IS VERY MUCH ABOUT THE
ECONOMY AND JOB CREATION, AND
IT'S APPROPRIATE THAT WE HAVE
BEFORE THE SENATE A PIECE OF
LEGISLATION DEALING WITH SMALL
BUSINESS, AND WE KNOW THAT SMALL
BUSINESS AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP IS
A PATH TO JOB CREATION.
AND WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME
IN THIS SENATE, IN THE HOUSE, IN
WASHINGTON, D.C., DISCUSSING THE
ECONOMY, AND ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT'S FRONT AND CENTER TODAY IS
THE NEED FOR US TO BE MUCH MORE
HABITS.
RESPONSIBLE IN OUR SPENDING
IN MY VIEW, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS FINANCIALLY BROKE.
RIGHTFULLY SO, WE OUGHT TO PASS
A CONTINUING RESOLUTION THAT
REDUCES SPENDING FOR THE
REMAINING SIX MONTHS OF THIS
FISCAL YEAR.
WE OUGHT TO QUICKLY MOVE TO A
BUDGET AND TO AN APPROPRIATION
PROCESS THAT ALLOWS FOR THE GIVE
AND TAKE, THE CONSIDERATION OF
THOSE THINGS IN WHICH WE CAN
AFFORD TO SPEND MONEY ON, THE
THINGS THAT ARE APPROPRIATELY
THE ROLE OF THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, AND FIND THOSE
PLACES IN WHICH WE CAN AGAIN
SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE SPENDING.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT ASPECT
OF WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO
GET OUR ECONOMY BACK ON TRACK
AND JOBS CREATED, AND I THINK
OFTEN WE -- WE WRITE OFF WHAT
HAPPENS IN WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE JUST SEE US
AS REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
HAVING ONE MORE BATTLE ABOUT
SPENDING AND DEFICITS.
IT'S THINGS THAT I'VE HEARD,
TOPICS THAT I'VE HEARD DISCUSSED
MY ENTIRE LIFE COMING FROM
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE REALITY IS THIS IS AN
IMPORTANT ISSUE AT AN IMPORTANT
TIME IN OUR COUNTRY'S HISTORY,
AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE
APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION OF THIS
SPENDING ISSUE, IN MY VIEW, THE
STANDARD OF LIVING THAT
AMERICANS ENJOY TODAY WILL BE
REDUCED, INFLATION WILL RETURN,
THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR WILL BE
DIMINISHED, THE STANDARD OF
LIVING THAT WE HAVE BECOME
ACCUSTOMED TO AS AMERICANS TODAY
I SAY WILL BE DIMINISHED, BUT
EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, THE
OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN TO PURSUE THE
AMERICAN DREAM IS CERTAINLY LESS
THAN WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE,
CERTAINLY LESS THAN WHAT I
EXPERIENCED AS AN AMERICAN
GROWING NEWSPAPER THIS COUNTRY.
AND YES, IT'S NO FUN FOR US AS
ELECTED OFFICIALS TO TALK ABOUT
THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CUT,
SPENDING THAT NEEDS TO BE
REDUCED, AND I CERTAINLY STAND
WILLING TO WORK WITH MY
COLLEAGUES HERE AND WITH THE
PRESIDENT AND OTHERS TO SEE THAT
WE ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL OF
REDUCING SPENDING AND THE
CONSEQUENCE OF THAT BEING A
BETTER BUDGET PICTURE AND A
REDUCED DEFICIT.
BUT THERE IS A POSITIVE ASPECT
OF WHAT WE CAN DO TO REDUCE OUR
BUDGET DEFICIT THAT GOES BEYOND
JUST CUTTING SPENDING, AND THAT
IS TO CREATE JOBS, TO CREATE
ECONOMIC EXPANSION.
THE OPTIMISM THAT THIS COUNTRY
NEEDS CAN BE RESTORED BY
DECISIONS WE MAKE HERE IN THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESS, AND
THOSE DECISIONS REVOLVE AROUND A
BUSINESS OR AN ENTREPRENEUR, A
SMALL BUSINESS MAN OR WOMAN'S
DECISION THAT IT'S TIME TO
EXPAND THEIR PLANT.
IT'S TIME TO INVEST AND PUT IN
MORE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT.
THAT IT'S TIME TO HIRE AN
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE.
BUT IN MY VIEW, ONE OF THE
REASONS THAT THAT'S NOT
HAPPENING IS THE TAX ENVIRONMENT
THAT'S BEEN CREATED, THE
UNCERTAINTY THAT WE HAD WITH
WHAT OUR TAX CODE IS GOING TO
BE, THE LACK OF ACCESS TO
CREDIT, THE UNCERTAINTY THAT OUR
BANKERS AND OTHER FINANCIAL
LENDERS FACE IN DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THEY CAN MAKE A
LOAN TO A CREDITWORTHY CUSTOMER,
AND ESPECIALLY THE ONE I WANT TO
TALK ABOUT JUST BRIEFLY TODAY IS
THE REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT THAT
THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY FINDS
ITSELF IN.
AND THIS EFFORT BY THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TO REGULATE GREENHOUSE GASES, IN
MY VIEW, DOES TWO VERY NEGATIVE
THINGS TOWARD JOB CREATION.
ONE IS IT INCREASES THE COST OF
BEING IN BUSINESS, AND THAT
OCCURS AT A TIME IN WHICH WE
DON'T EXPECT OTHER COUNTRIES TO
ABIDE BY THE SAME REGIMEN THAT
WE MAY CREATE, THAT OUR
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAY CREATE AROUND THE WORLD.
THAT WE WOULD NOT EXPECT OTHER
COUNTRIES TO ABIDE BY THOSE SAME
RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THE
E.P.A. IS PUTTING IN PLACE.
ONCE AGAIN AMERICAN
WORKERS, AMERICAN BUSINESS IS AT
A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN
COMPARISON TO THOSE WHO MAKE
DECISIONS ABOUT WHERE PLANTS ARE
LOCATED, AND WE LOSE ACCESS TO
WORLD MARKETS BECAUSE SOMEBODY
ELSE CAN SELL SOMETHING CHEAPER
THAN WE CAN BECAUSE OF RISING
COSTS OF PRODUCTION.
AND SO EVEN IF THERE IS AN
EFFORT THAT EXCLUDES AGRICULTURE
OR SMALL BUSINESS FROM THIS
LEGISLATION, THE COST OF
PRODUCTION GOES UP BECAUSE IN
ADDITION TO THE DIRECT EFFECT OF
HAVING THOSE REGULATIONS APPLY
TO YOUR BUSINESS, THERE IS THE
INDIRECT INCREASE IN COSTS
RELATED TO FUEL AND ENERGY
COSTS, ELECTRICITY AND GAS.
SO, CLEARLY TO ME, IF YOU CARE
ABOUT JOB CREATION, YOU WOULD
MAKE CERTAIN THAT THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DOES NOT HEAD DOWN THE PATH THAT
IT'S GOING BECAUSE OF THE
INCREASED COST OF BEING IN
BUSINESS AND THE CONSEQUENCES
THAT HAS FOR AMERICAN BUSINESS
GLOBAL ECONOMY.
TO BE ABLE TO COMPETE IN A
THE SECOND ASPECT OF THIS -- AND
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE REAL
DRAGS ON TODAY'S RECOVERY FROM
THE RECESSION, IS THE
UNCERTAINTY.
NO BUSINESSPERSON FEELS
COMFORTABLE TODAY IN MAKING A
DECISION TO EXPAND OR TO PUT
MORE PEOPLE TO WORK, TO HIRE AN
ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEE, TO INVEST
IN PLANT OR EQUIPMENT BECAUSE
THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NEXT
SET OF REGULATIONS ARE GOING TO
DO TO THEIR BOTTOM LINE.
EVEN THE UNCERTAINTY OF THIS
ISSUE, WE'VE HAD THE DRAG UPON
OUR ECONOMY OF THE THOUGHT THAT
CONGRESS MIGHT PASS THE
LEGISLATION LABELED CAP AND
TRADE.
IT BECAME CLEAR WHEN THE SENATE
ADJOURNED AT THE END OF 2010
HAPPEN.
THAT THAT WAS NOT GOING TO
BUT THEN THE UNCERTAINTY BECAME
BUT WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY GOING TO DO?
AS I VISIT PLANTS, FACILITIES
ACROSS KANSAS AND TALK TO FAMILY
OWNERS OF SMALL BUSINESSES,
MANUFACTURERS, THE MOST COMMON
QUESTION I GET FROM A BUSINESS
OWNER IS: WHAT NEXT IS
GOVERNMENT GOING TO DO THAT MAY
PUT ME OUT OF BUSINESS?
IT'S UNFORTUNATE, IT SEEMS LIKE
GOVERNMENT IS NO LONGER EVEN
NEUTRAL IN REGARD TO THE SUCCESS
OF A BUSINESS IN THE UNITED
ADVERSARY.
STATES, BUT HAS BECOME AN
AND SO, MR. PRESIDENT, I URGE MY
COLLEAGUES TO SUPPORT THE
McCONNELL AMENDMENT.
I THINK IT IS A CLEAR STATEMENT
THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY CANNOT DO WHAT
IT INTENDS TO DO.
IT ELIMINATES THE UNCERTAINTY
THAT A BUSINESSPERSON FACES.
AND IT REDUCES THE COST OF BEING
IN BUSINESS IN A WAY THAT SAYS
WE'RE GOING TO GROW THE ECONOMY
AND PUT PEOPLE TO WORK.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF
CONVERSATIONS ON THE SENATE
FLOOR.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DISCUSSIONS
WITH THE ADMINISTRATION, WITH
OUR COLLEAGUES IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT WHAT
SPENDING WE ARE GOING TO CUT.
AND THOSE ARE DIFFICULT
CONVERSATIONS.
BUT I COME BACK TO THE POINT
THAT WE AS AMERICANS HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE OPTIMISTIC.
AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO FOR US TO
HAVE A BRIGHT FUTURE, WHAT WE
CAN DO TO HAVE A POSITIVE
CONVERSATION WITH THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE ABOUT WHAT GOOD THINGS
ARE YET TO COME REVOLVES AROUND
THE FACT THAT WE WILL GET RID OF
ONEROUS REGULATIONS THAT SERVE
NO VALID PURPOSE IN IMPROVING
OUR ENVIRONMENT AND CREATE GREAT
UNCERTAINTY AND EVER-INCREASING
COSTS FOR BEING IN BUSINESS.
WE CAN HAVE THIS CONVERSATION IN
A VACUUM, BUT THE REALITY IS OUR
ECONOMY DOESN'T OPERATE IN A
VACUUM.
OUR BUSINESS FOLKS IN KANSAS AND
ACROSS THE COUNTRY HAVE TO
COMPETE IN A GLOBAL ECONOMY, AND
THIS LEGISLATION THAT SENATOR
McCONNELL, SENATOR INHOFE HAS
OFFERED ELIMINATES THAT
UNCERTAINTY, REDUCES THE COST OF
BEING IN BUSINESS AND ALLOWS US
TO HAVE OPTIMISM ABOUT THE
FUTURE OF THE AMERICAN ECONOMY.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, OPTIMISM
FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SIT AROUND
THEIR DINING ROOM TABLE WANTING
TO MAKE CERTAIN THEY EITHER CAN
KEEP A JOB OR CAN FIND A JOB.
MR. PRESIDENT, I SEE THE
McCONNELL AMENDMENT AS THAT
MOMENT OF OPTIMISM.
THE MESSAGE WE SEND TO THE
AMERICAN WORKER, TO THOSE WHO
ARE EMPLOYED AND THOSE WHO ARE
UNEMPLOYED THAT THIS UNITED
STATES SENATE UNDERSTANDS THAT
UNLESS WE GET RID OF THE
IMPEDIMENTS TOR A GROWING
ECONOMY, WE HAVE LITTLE OPTIMISM
ABOUT THE FUTURE OF JOB
CREATION.
THAT MESSAGE.
THE McCONNELL AMENDMENT SENDS
IT DOES IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES A
LOT OF SENSE FOR THE AMERICAN
ECONOMY AND FOR THE AMERICAN
WORKER.
I THANK THE PRESIDENT AND YIELD
BACK MY TIME.
MR. PRESIDENT, I NOTICE THE
ABSENCE OF A QUORUM.
THE
CLERK WILL CALL THE ROLL.
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
CALL:
QUORUM CALL:
QUORUM CALL.
MR. PRESIDENT?
THE
SENATOR FROM COLORADO.
MR. PRESIDENT, I'D
ASK UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO LIFT
THE QUORUM CALL.
WITHOUT
OBJECTION.