Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I have introduced called the Clean Air Protection Act. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated that she believes the…
Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a bill I have introduced called the Clean Air Protection Act.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated that she believes the Clean Air Act was not specifically designed to address greenhouse gases. She also says using the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change raises serious concerns.
I agree with her completely. So then what was the EPA's response to the problem? Well, they developed a tailored interpretation of the Clean Air Act where they ignore certain provisions of the law. This tailored interpretation is actually called the tailoring rule. The tailoring rule is EPA's attempt to limit the scope of the Clean Air Act--limit it to only those businesses that emit 25,000 tons of greenhouse gases. That is 100 times more than the amount of emissions that are currently allowed by law.
Saying that the EPA will only limit emissions from large businesses is not allowed under the current law--the Clean Air Act. So if you are going to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions for American businesses, you have to use the standard that Congress has set out in the act. The EPA's approach is not legal, and I can tell you it will be challenged in court.
I alerted EPA Administrator Jackson and the EPA Assistant Administrator Regina McCarthy that special interest groups are scheming to sue the EPA. Suits will be filed if the EPA does not follow the Clean Air Act limits--sue them to capture hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and any other small emitters of greenhouse gases.
I put a hold on Regina McCarthy at the time she was the nominee to be the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. I did this because of my concern about lawsuits if the EPA attempted to use the Clean Air Act to regulate climate change. I wanted to know what the EPA's solution to the problem would be. When asked about potential lawsuits, Regina McCarthy said that she will--
. . . request that I be informed if any such notice is
filed with regard to a small source, and I will follow up
with potential litigants.
That is the EPA's solution, to sit down over a cup of coffee and ask lawyers for special interest groups not to sue. Groups know the law. They know what it says. The EPA Administrator is opening the door to environmentalists and other activists to file suit--to sue to run small businesses into the ground. Up to 1.2 million hospitals, farms, nursing homes, commercial buildings, and other small emitters could be bankrupt. The net result of all of this will be jobs lost. According to the Heritage Foundation, job losses are estimated to reach 800,000.
The solution to this problem is not to have government officials go around asking litigants not to sue; the solution is to pass legislation that takes this regulatory ticking timebomb off the table for good. That is why I have introduced legislation to fix the problem. The bill, S. 1622--the Clean Air Protection Act--takes the Clean Air Act out of the business of regulating climate change. My legislation allows car and truck regulations under the Clean Air Act to move forward, while stopping the regulation of stationary sources, such as small businesses, hospitals, farms, and nursing homes.
Given the introduction of the tailoring rule by the EPA, Congress should pass S. 1622, the Clean Air Protection Act, without delay, pass it before the regulatory ticking timebomb goes off.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
