GOP’s ‘No Cost’ Stimulus March 1, 2010
Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010From Senator David Vitter
Republicans are reviving their push for what they say is a no-cost solution to reviving the economy: rollback or block costly environmental requirements that prevent companies from investing in energy production projects and creating jobs.
The GOP push comes as Democrats are eyeing a new round of stimulus funds that Republicans oppose as too costly by adding to an already record-breaking federal deficit. Instead, Republican senators are reviving their “No Cost Stimulus” bill, which would streamline the coastal impact assistance plan for Outer Continental Shelf energy leases and prohibit states from regulating mobile sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) and 17 Republican cosponsors “will definitely continue to look for appropriate vehicles to attach this bill as an amendment,” Vitter’s spokesman told Inside EPA. The Louisiana senator originally introduced the bill as stand-alone legislation last year, and according to Vitter’s Web site has the “specific goal of job creation and economic stimulus without borrowing or issuing new debt for which the next generation will be responsible.”
The Web site also pitches the bill as an “approach directed towards energy development and production” that includes provisions aimed at “streamlining environmental review processes that have choked U.S. businesses and development.”
The vow by Vitter’s office to keep searching for legislative vehicles to attach the bill comes after the lawmakers unsuccessfully offered the bill for inclusion Feb. 22 in Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) message to the House on the Senate’s just-passed jobs bill, H.R. 2847.
While the rider was not attached to the bill, the legislation shows the Republicans’ intent to keep pushing a number of their environmental priorities, including streamlining the process for plans to reduce the coastal impact of offshore drilling; steps to prohibit EPA or state regulation of GHGs; and proposed exemptions to Endangered Species Act (ESA) reviews.
For example, the bill would amend the Clean Air Act to add language that the definition of “air pollutant” cannot include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane agriculture or livestock, or water vapor. That could bar attempts by EPA to regulate CO2 under the air law.
The bill would also amend the air law to prohibit EPA from granting any waivers to states seeking to impose GHG emission limits on motor vehicles. California can under existing air law authority request a federal waiver from EPA to set standards for mobile sources at a more stringent level than agency rules, and if successful, other states can adopt those standards. But Vitter’s bill would prohibit such waivers if the rules would regulate mobile source GHG emissions.
The legislation would also amend the ESA of 1973 to exclude GHG impacts on species of fish, wildlife or plants for “any purpose” in the implementation of the law. The Vitter bill defines GHGs to include CO2, methane, nitrous oxide and other anthropogenic gases.
The bill would also amend ESA so that if a state governor declares an emergency then the federal government could provide temporary exemptions from the law’s prohibition against taking — injuring, killing or otherwise harming an endangered species — and the prohibition against the adverse modification of critical habitat. This would allow states to take steps to address emergencies, for example quickly launching a flood control project, without those ESA constraints.
Finally, the bill would require the government to develop procedures to streamline the permit process required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and state laws for coastal restoration projects that are included in an approved Outer Continental Shelf energy leasing plan.
