Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act of 2014

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

GREENHOUSE GASES

Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, I have said before on the Senate floor that the proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations to limit carbon dioxide are an example among far too many of Executive overreach by this administration.

Anyone who knows the history of the Clean Air Act--and I was here for the last major revision in 1990--or who has read the text of that law knows it was never intended to address greenhouse gases or climate change.

The Clean Air Act is designed to address traditional pollutants that have a direct impact on human health and the environment. However, when Congress declined to pass legislation supported by President Obama that would have created a cap-and-trade system targeted at greenhouse gases, the President gave a speech saying he would act on his own. In trying to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, which was not designed for that purpose, the EPA had to fit a square peg in a round hole.

As a result, when a number of key provisions in the Clean Air Act didn't say what the EPA would like them to say, the EPA simply reinterpreted those provisions to say something different or ignored them. In effect, the EPA was unconstitutionally rewriting a law passed by the Congress.

We all know what article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says: ``All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States ..... ''

Regardless of where you stand on climate change, we ought to be able to agree that it is not appropriate for the EPA or, for that matter, any administrative agency to twist the law passed by Congress to mean something other than what it says. This isn't a partisan position, and you don't have to take my word for it. Just listen to what President Obama's Harvard professor, renowned liberal constitutional scholar Lawrence Tribe, has written:

The defects in the Proposed Rule transcend political affiliation and policy positions and cut across partisan lines .....

Continuing:

The central principle at stake is a rule of law--the basic premise that EPA must comply with fundamental statutory and constitutional requirements in carrying out its mission.

The Proposed Rule should be withdrawn. It is a remarkable example of executive overreach and an administrative agency's assertion of power beyond its statutory authority.

Indeed, the Proposed Rule raises serious constitutional questions.

In addition to his reputation as one of the country's most prominent constitutional scholars, Professor Tribe is also a long-time Democratic Party activist. In fact, he served as a judicial adviser to President Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign, briefly worked in his administration, and has been a very vocal supporter of the President. When Professor Tribe says the Obama administration has exceeded its authority, you can take it to the bank.

I should also add, in response to concerns that the EPA regulations are not a legitimate or appropriate response to climate change, I often hear that at least EPA is doing something. Well, aside from the fact that regulatory approach is not legally justified, it is also ineffective.

As Professor Tribe points out on his treatise in this matter:

The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Proposed Rule states that the impact of ``reduced climate effects'' has been ``monetized'' but not ``quantified.'' In other words, EPA does not claim that the Proposed Rule would affect the climate. The mismatch and lack of social benefit distinguish the Proposed Rule from other actions by EPA under the Clean Air Act.

This isn't news. President Obama's first EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson, confirmed in testimony before a Senate committee that: ``U.S. action alone will not impact world CO

2 levels.''

So these regulations will have no measurable environmental benefit, but will have tremendous costs, particularly for the Midwest, given our energy mix.

The EPA rules are all pain and no gain.

This is not an argument about environmental policy. I am proud to be a leading advocate for renewable energy, and I believe there is room for some bipartisan agreement about diversifying our Nation's energy sources.

However, I want you all to know that I agree with Professor Tribe that regardless of the underlying policy goals, the rule of law must be respected and the proposed rule should be withdrawn. I hope President Obama will learn from his former Harvard professor and end with the President of the United States doing the right thing.

I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source