Lee Zeldin

And then I also referenced West Virginia versus EPA as an example, the major policies doctrine.

If you're going to do trillions of dollars of regulation, that is something that is for Congress.

And as far as this decision itself, it was loaded with so many mental leaps.

They said that when carbon dioxide was mixed with five other well-mixed gases, some of them not even emitted from vehicles, that it contributes, not causes, contributes to global climate change, that you won't find that in Section 202 of the Clean Air Act.

And they say global climate change endangers public health and welfare without analyzing the local and regional impacts, which is the way that it was always done for decades.

When you actually dig into what the law says,

The Obama administration decided, well, I guess we have to change the law.

They tried to get the votes in Congress.

And then when they couldn't get the votes, they said, well, I guess we're just going to have to do it anyway.

Well, fast forward to 2026, game over.

The endangerment finding is gone.

Right.

And it's also based off of what the law doesn't allow.

You know, this is, this is a best reading of the clean air act, which does not say that we should be regulating the,

in a mission to combat global climate change.

And you could ignore all of the bad guesses of Al Gore and John Kerry and others.

You can replace all of the bad, flawed assumptions on science that were made in 2009 with the most pessimistic predictions that didn't bear out as we look at facts in 2026.

Regardless of where anyone is on their opinion or the fact on the science debate, the reality is the Clean Air Act does not authorize this, that Congress would have to pass a new law

in order to have trillions of dollars of regulation.

So yeah, no, it doesn't have to be codified.