Climate Change

Floor Speech

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I have in my hand a memo by Obama administration attorneys--a compilation of attorneys--from a number of different Federal agencies. It is marked ``Deliberative'' and ``Attorney Client Privilege.'' This memo is well thought out. It is scientific as well as a legal critique of the decision by this administration to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. The memo confirms the fears of every small business owner, every farmer, every school and hospital administrator, in both large and small communities, that the Obama administration knows that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America. They know it, but for political reasons they have ignored the science. The consequences to our economy have also been ignored, as well as the impact on the American people.

I am going to be clear. To me, this memo is a smoking gun. This memo
makes clear statements about the dangers to America of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change.

The memo states:

Making the decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.

Should EPA later extend this finding to stationary sources, small businesses and institutions would be subject to costly regulatory programs. .....

Costly programs.

The document also highlights that EPA undertook no ``systemic risk analysis or cost-benefit analysis'' in making their endangerment finding.

The White House legal brief questions the link between the EPA's scientific technical endangerment proposal and the EPA's political summary.

The EPA Administrator said in the endangerment summary that ``scientific findings in totality point to compelling evidence of human-induced climate change, and that serious risks and potential impacts to public health and welfare have been clearly identified. .....'' But the memo states that this is not at all accurate. The memo actually questions--questions--the science behind designating carbon dioxide as a health threat, stating the scientific data on which the agency relies are ``almost exclusively from non-Environmental Protection Agency sources.''

The memo goes on to say that the essential behaviors of greenhouse gases are ``not well determined'' and ``not well understood.''

The memo says:

The finding rests heavily on the precautionary principle, but the amount of acknowledged lack of understanding about the basic facts surrounding [greenhouse gases] seems to stretch the precautionary principle to providing regulation in the face of unprecedented uncertainty.

Under the same precautionary principle, the memo says the Environmental Protection Agency could ``also regulate electro-magnetic fields and noise.''

This memo confirms that the administration has ignored its own advice. It is looking to make up scientific facts to make a predetermined conclusion. This is politics trumping science. It is the American people who will ultimately pay the price.

I have long stated my concerns that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is a bad idea for our country.

The Chamber of Commerce has stated that 1.2 million new entities such as schools, farms, hospitals, office buildings, big-box stores, enclosed malls, commercial kitchens, nursing homes, and small businesses--in both large and small communities--all would be captured under this preconstruction permit program under the Clean Air Act.

If only 1 percent of the 1.2 million major stationary sources of carbon dioxide in this country undertook new construction or modifications each year, well then, the agencies would have to process 12,000 permits every year. Given the EPA's statement in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in 2008 that 2,000 to 3,000 new permits could ``overwhelm'' the EPA and the States, how can permitting authorities handle the 12,000 they would have to look at? How can they handle 12,000 permits annually? The answer is, with everything they do and everything they stated, they cannot.

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says she is not planning to regulate small emitters. She says she can be targeted in what she regulates. But by what authority can the Environmental Protection Agency of this Nation not include all the emitters of carbon dioxide that meet the emission thresholds that are set out in the Clean Air Act? Strangely enough, not just the authors of the administration's legal brief but also environmental groups disagree with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency because she says she can limit those and regulate those she chooses.

The Sierra Club's chief climate counsel stated last year that:

The Clean Air Act has language in there that is kind of [an] all or nothing if carbon dioxide gets regulated and it could be unbelievably complicated and administratively nightmarish.

The Center for Biological Diversity says:

The EPA has no authority [at all] to weaken the requirements of the [Clean Air Act] simply because its political appointees don't like the law's requirements.

I have warned the Administrator of the EPA that groups such as these will sue the EPA if the EPA does not capture both large and small emitters. She has dismissed these threats. This is despite the Wall Street Journal last week reporting that a representative of the Center for Biological Diversity stated that her group is prepared to sue for regulation of smaller emitters, such as farms, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes--and they will do that--if the EPA stops at simply going after the large emitters.

I have asked for a plan from the Administrator on how she will address losing court cases if the agency is sued for picking winners and picking losers. Her response in a committee hearing--this was this week--is that she cannot share with me any such plans they might have in that forum of a committee meeting. Well, I would ask the Administrator, if you cannot share information with the elected representatives of the 50 States, then in what forum can you share the information? None of this is in keeping with the transparency that has been promised under this administration.

Similarly, I have asked the person who has been nominated to head up the Air and Radiation Office, Mrs. Regina McCarthy, in the Environmental Protection Agency, the same question. Her response was she cannot share with me her plans because she is not in the job yet. She has said she would like to be informed of potential suits and would then personally meet with anyone wanting to sue to convince them not to sue. Well, Government officials cannot go running around trying to convince every litigant--whether it be an environmental group or a local group that does not want something in their backyard--not to sue. This is not a good policy. This is not good enough.

I am seriously troubled with the administration and their approach to this issue. I have a hold on Mrs. McCarthy's nomination because this process of using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is flawed. There appears to be no plan to address it.

With the release of this internal document, we now know that the plan the administration has to address climate change is political and not scientific. They know that using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change is bad for America. They choose to ignore the threat to America. They are playing a dangerous game of chicken with Congress and the American people.

Either we will all jump to pass the President's energy tax--his cap-and-tax plan--or we will crash head-on into this regulatory ticking timebomb. In the end, it will be the American people who will have to pay the price.

The administration has tried to convince the public to support this cap-and-tax proposal.

Charlie Munger, who is the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway--who works closely with Warren Buffett; they have been partners for years--stated that creating an artificial market in Government-mandated carbon credits would be a ``monstrously stupid thing to do right now.'' And he said such a move is ``almost demented.''

Well, according to the Wall Street Journal, the administration has now consulted pollsters who advocate avoiding such phrases now as ``cap and trade'' and ``global warming.'' The White House Council on Environmental Equality has also scheduled a meeting--earlier this week--with the president of ecoAmerica, a Washington-based nonprofit that uses--their terms--``psychographic research'' to ``shift personal and civic choices of environmentally agnostic Americans.'' This is a sign of desperation. The administration realizes the American people are not buying what they are trying to sell here. The consequences of this issue are too grave for America.

Mr. President, I would say take this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table. Let's pass legislation taking the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. Then let's forge a plan in a bipartisan way that makes America's energy as clean as we can make it, as fast as we can do it, without raising energy prices for American families. Let's develop all of our energy resources--wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, clean coal, nuclear,
and natural gas. We need it all. We need an ``all of the above'' energy strategy to address our Nation's energy needs. I look forward to working with my colleagues to address those needs for our Nation.

I yield the floor.

Source