-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. CRAMER. Madam President, thank you for the recognition.
At the outset, let me say thank you to Senators Manchin and Capito for their passionate support and their words today in support of this joint resolution, this Congressional Review Act resolution. I also want to thank the chairman of the EPW, the distinguished Senator from Delaware and my friend. As he just said, we have worked closely together on lots of things. It is a great committee. It is fun to work on. And, again, we just don't see eye to eye on this one, but I just want to offer my respect for the good work that we all do together. I thank the Senator.
Madam President, few things are more frustrating in government than unelected bureaucrats asserting authority they don't have and foisting Federal mediocrity on the excellence of States. Shortly, the Senate will take up my bipartisan resolution that overturns the Biden administration's obviously illegal--regardless of how you might feel about the merits, an obviously illegal rule that requires State departments of transportation to measure CO
This rule is wrong on so many levels and has already been overturned by courts in Texas and Kentucky. Now we, the elected policymakers in our system, have the opportunity to correct course and spare the taxpayers the gross expense of litigating this demonstration of bureaucratic arrogance.
When the Environment and Public Works Committee negotiated the highway bill, we considered giving this authority to the Department of Transportation. But after the hearings and the deliberations, the committee chose not to grant such authority to the Agency, and we passed the bill out unanimously. And it became the foundation for the broader bipartisan bill known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
When the ``bipartisan gang'' put their proposal together, they, too, chose to leave this authority out of the bill. These decisions were not accidental; they were intentional.
When we pointed this out during the Department of Transportation's official comment period, the Federal Highway Administration provided a very novel rationale. Get this, now. They argued that since Congress was aware of their plans to promulgate this rule and did not explicitly bar it, ``Congress intended to leave such determinations to''--get this, now--``Agency expertise to be handled via regulatory authority.''
That is not just arrogance; that is arrogance on steroids.
Here is what the late great Winston Churchill had to say about expertise in government:
Nothing would be more fatal than for the government of States to get into the hands of the experts. Expert knowledge is limited knowledge: and the unlimited ignorance of the plain man who knows only what hurts is a safer guide, than any vigorous direction of a specialised character.
Congress does not ``leave'' determinations to Agencies. Congress either grants such authority or it does not. And if it does not, the Agency does not possess that power.
In fact, let me read a couple of lines from the courts who have already ruled on this issue.
If the people, through Congress, believe that the states should spend the time and money necessary to measure and report [greenhouse gas] emissions and set declining emission targets, they may do so by amending Section 150 or passing a new law. But an agency cannot make this decision for the people. An agency can only do what the people authorize it to do, and the plain language of Section 150(c)(3) and its related statutory provisions demonstrate the [Department of Transportation] was not authorized to enact the 2023 Rule.
That was Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Judge Benjamin Beaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky wrote:
If the Administrator--
referring to the Federal highway administrator.
If the Administrator were allowed to shove national greenhouse-gas policy into the mouths of uncooperative state Departments of Transportation, this would corrupt the separation of sovereigns central to our lasting and vibrant system of federalism. Neither the Constitution nor the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes administrative ventriloquism.
Colleagues, the absence of a prohibition is not a license for bureaucracy to do whatever it pleases. These court rulings underscore Agencies must abide by the law, not invent the authority they desire.
Several States have resoundingly rejected this illegal rule. Several State departments of transportation objected to it in writing. Several States joined this litigation, and 50 Senators have cosponsored this Congressional Review Act.
Let me just quote a couple of States. The Arizona Department of Transportation:
Arizona Department of Transportation disagrees with the justification provided in the NPRM regarding the legal authority for Federal Highway Administration to establish a greenhouse gas emissions performance measure.
The Michigan Department of Transportation writes:
MDOT is apprehensive about supporting new measures not explicitly authorized by Congress . . . Therefore, there is no provision in federal law requiring the Federal Highway Administration to establish a greenhouse gas measure.
Twenty attorneys general from Montana, Virginia, Georgia, Ohio, and a number of other States wrote:
The proposed greenhouse gas measure would be a serious revision of what Congress has written, and Congress has not given the Federal Highway Administration such editorial power.
Madam President, the Biden administration should have never introduced this rule, but now we, the policymaking branch of government, must end it. I urge all of my colleagues to stand up for the Senate and vote for this restoration of article I powers. Vote yes on this Congressional Review Act resolution.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source