[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 19]
[Senate]
[Pages 25391-25392]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CLEAN AIR PROTECTION ACT

  Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

[[Page 25392]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.

                          ____________________