[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 74 (Thursday, May 14, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5464-S5466]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                             CLIMATE CHANGE

  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

[[Page S5465]]

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,

[[Page S5466]]

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.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________