Fraud Enforcement And Recovery Act Of 2009

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I come to the floor today because the Environmental Protection Agency has issued a proposal, a proposal finding that greenhouse gas emissions pose a danger to the public's health and welfare. The Washington Post has referred to this as a ``determination that could trigger a series of sweeping regulations affecting everything from vehicles to coal-fired power plants.'' According to legal experts, the scope of these regulations could cover hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and even nursing homes.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said that the EPA was not looking for a doomsday solution. Well, I have news for the administrator--this is one. In fact, this endangerment finding, once finalized, could cover any source that emits more than 250 tons per year of carbon dioxide. This is the limit expressly mentioned in the Clean Air Act. Hospitals, schools, farms, commercial buildings, and nursing homes will be required to obtain preconstruction permits for their activities. Further, according to the legal scholars, the statutory language is mandatory and does not leave any room for the EPA to exercise discretion or to create exemptions.

The economic consequences of this will be great. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one-fifth of all food service businesses, one-third of all health care businesses, one-half of the entire lodging industry--all of those could be covered under the scope of the Clean Air Act. According to the Heritage Foundation, such regulations would lead to job losses that would exceed 800,000 jobs. I thought this administration was interested in creating jobs, not killing them. But that is what this ruling says. The gross domestic product lost to the country could be $7 trillion by the year 2029.

In short, unless Congress acts, this administration is taking an enormous risk, an enormous economic gamble with the future of the American people. It is a bad bet, with no hope for any temperature reductions--which is what they are trying to do.

The EPA Administrator has stated that she wants to avoid a regulatory thicket. If this approach is such a bad option, let's take it off the table. Why would the administration deliberately leave a bad option, a regulatory thicket for Americans, on the table? It makes no sense. It is for that reason that today I have sent a letter to President Obama asking that he take this option off the table. He must urge the Senate leadership and the House leadership right here to pass legislation to exempt the Clean Air Act from becoming a climate change tool. It is a bad option for Americans, and it is no option for America.

The Administrator of the EPA has stated that, if necessary, she is poised to be specific on what we regulate and on what schedule. I asked the EPA nominee, who will oversee the Clean Air Act, how this would be done. She responded that President George W. Bush's advance notice of proposed rulemaking laid out the options. This is the same advance notice of proposed rulemaking that has been so roundly criticized by the majority.

I asked how the EPA would handle losing court challenges if the department tried to exempt farms and schools and hospitals and nursing homes and small businesses from the reach of the Clean Air Act. The nominee responded again that President Bush's rulemaking ``explored a number of possible ways of streamlining'' the Clean Air Act. This is not an answer at all. The American people need to know how they will be protected from the long arm of Washington.

The EPA Administrator admits that a better option is to have Congress pass legislation to deal with climate change. The option on the table today is the President's energy tax. The President's energy tax is moving in the House of Representatives. It is called the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. The President's energy tax will fund a trillion-dollar climate bailout scheme--a bailout scheme that will not reduce global temperatures by even a single degree. Moving forward with a $1 trillion climate bailout scheme to avoid the Clean Air Act regulations is the legislative equivalent of moving the American taxpayers from the frying pan into the fire.

This President's cap-and-trade scheme will dramatically raise prices on businesses as well as on consumers. It is bad for consumers, it is bad for jobs, and it is bad for our economy.

We have passed numerous bailout bills over the past 6 months. We passed a $787 billion stimulus package for an economic bailout intended to save or create jobs. This is money we have been borrowing from China. They have such concerns they are not so interested in lending it to us anymore.

The American people already have bailout and borrowing fatigue. We all know our deficits are soaring. We have saddled future generations with this debt for years to come. I hear that when I go to the schools and talk to the high school students.

Spending trillions of additional dollars to address climate change through an untested cap-and-trade scheme is an unnecessarily risky approach. It, too, is a regulatory nightmare. This approach will cost thousands of jobs in the very same sectors that will be hit under the Clean Air Act. It is not a viable option, and it is not a responsible option.

I call on the Senate leadership to expedite legislation to the President that takes the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating the climate. Let us come together and find a solution to our Nation's energy needs. With all seriousness, we need all of it, we need all the sources of energy because we will continue to use it all. We need a solution that makes American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and without hurting our economy.

It is time for the Environmental Protection Agency to get that message.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source