Every Child Achieves Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, late last month, the Supreme Court issued a severe rebuke to the Obama administration and to his Environmental Protection Agency. It was a strong stand against Washington overreach.

The Environmental Protection Agency had written what it called the mercury and air toxics standards rule. The rule was a key part of the Obama administration's war on coal. The Supreme Court said that when Washington bureaucrats were writing this rule, they failed--the EPA failed--to consider the overwhelming costs they were imposing on hard-working American families. The Court said: ``One would not say that it is even rational, never mind appropriate, to impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health and environmental benefits.'' It wasn't even rational, never mind appropriate. The Court's decision was exactly right, and many of us saw it as a big step forward in reining in this out-of-control Environmental Protection Agency.

Here is the problem. The rule came out in 2012, and the Supreme Court didn't make its ruling until 2015. That is 3 years. It is far too late for many Americans who work at coal plants and who have already been hurt by the EPA's ruling in 2012. That is because power companies were already having to comply with that rule while it made its way through the court process. They have already closed plants because of the rule, even though the Supreme Court now says that the rule was inappropriate, it was wrong. Now, unemployed workers won't get their jobs back now that the Court has ruled against the Obama administration. Because of these regulations, people are already paying higher electricity rates than they would have been paying otherwise. Consumers don't get their money back, either, now that the Supreme Court says the Environmental Protection Agency overstepped its authority.

This isn't the first time this Agency has gone beyond the law and beyond what it is allowed to do. That is what it did when it put out its so-called waters of the United States rule. It is a recent rule--waters of the United States. It is a new regulation. The Agency wants to use it to greatly expand government control over the Nation's land and water. Farmers, ranchers, hard-working families would no longer be able to decide what to do with their own land. States, counties, and towns would no longer be able to decide what regulations will be best to protect the streams and the waters and the lakes within their borders. That is the problem. These decisions would now be made by Washington bureaucrats no matter what the cost, no matter how small the benefits or how large the cost.

Not only did the Agency increase its authority dramatically, it appears that it abused the rulemaking process to get the results the EPA wanted. What do I mean by that? Well, when Washington writes big, expensive regulations, it is supposed to have a public comment period so that people who might be harmed by the rules can have their say. According to news reports, when the EPA was writing the waters of the United States rule, the EPA twisted the public comment process into its own private, government-funded spin machine. This government agency ignored the negative comments by Americans who were actually concerned about the law and who were hurt by the law.

That is not what I am saying; that is what the New York Times said when it reported on the scandal back in May. The New York Times said that the EPA used taxpayer dollars to lobby liberal groups to flood the Agency with positive comments.

These were the same phony, ginned-up comments that it used to justify the dramatic overreach of its new regulations. It is incredible, it is unbelievable, and I believe it is also illegal.

If my colleagues want another example of overreach by the Environmental Protection Agency, look at the regulations it wrote to restrict the amount of carbon dioxide produced by powerplants. It is called the Clean Power Plan. When the EPA was writing this rule, it did the exact same thing the Supreme Court just said was not even rational. The EPA counted up what it said would be the benefits of the regulation without caring at all about the true costs.

So what are the true costs? Well, according to one estimate, the new regulations would add up to $366 billion in additional costs over the next 15 years. That cost will be passed on to consumers and will force more powerplants to close and more Americans to lose their jobs. For all of that expense, all of that damage to hard-working families, the benefits would be minimal.

The Obama administration makes wild claims about environmental benefits of this regulation. They are the same kinds of claims that it made for the rule the Supreme Court just called unreasonable. The Agency exaggerates the benefits, the Agency ignores the costs, and it puts its thumb on the scale to come up with the policy that it wants.

One of the big costs the Environmental Protection Agency has been ignoring is the damaging health effects of the unemployment caused by the regulations. When a powerplant closes, people in those communities lose their jobs and their health suffers. High unemployment increases the likelihood of hospital visits, of illnesses, of premature death. High unemployment raises health care costs, and it hurts children's health and family well-being. Those are real costs to families, to society, and the EPA continues to intentionally ignore them.

The Environmental Protection Agency was wrong when it wrote its mercury and air toxics rule, it was wrong when it wrote its waters of the United States rule, and it was wrong when it wrote its powerplant rule.

The Supreme Court has said the Environmental Protection Agency needs to take a more honest approach--the Supreme Court telling President Obama's EPA to take an honest approach--and it needs to take the true costs into consideration. That is what States across the country are already doing. Governors in Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Texas are refusing to be bullied by the Obama administration. They are refusing to give up their right to decide what is best for their own citizens. I believe these States are taking the right approach. They are waiting to get a true idea of the costs as well as the benefits before they rush to allow rules that would shut down powerplants and put thousands of people out of work. The Supreme Court says that is what Washington should be doing as well.

Maybe now the Obama administration will finally listen and start basing its regulations on what the science says is true, not just on what the bureaucrats of the administration wish were true.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source