The decision by EPA (and other bureaucracies in DC) to make regulations with the force of law is, arguably unconstitutional. The Constitution vests lawmaking with Congress and makes no provision for delegating that responsibility. Anyone who has dealt with the consequences of a regulatory violation recognizes that they carry the force of law.
As to Oscar's arguments, he makes more than one error.
First: Congressional opponents of EPA action don’t appear to have an alternative plan to cut emissions.
The alternative plan is to not cut emissions of carbon dioxide, so yes, there is a plan.
Second: The notion that to stop the EPA from the regulation Congress will have to overturn the EPA’s 2009 finding that such gases are “a threat to American health and welfare.” and,
The meaning of the second: What climate change? Scientists? The National Academy of Sciences? The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? Phooey. We’re members of Congress; cost for those who feed our campaign coffers is more important than whatever costs to the environment that greenhouse gases exact. Members of the panel hearing the EPA director’s testimony scoffed at the science in any case.
Oscar's error in the second is that (alleged) AGW research is tainted and is proven so. Data before about 1960 is incomplete at best. Data after that time suffers from siting issues and potential data manipulation. Many of those involved in this research and it's advocacy have enriched themselves at taxpayer expense through said research and advocacy. Further, if "carbon footprint" is so terribly important, why do these same people fly around in private jets and travel in limos to high end resorts for their conferences and speeches? Why does AlGore have a carbon footprint the size of Rhode Island? Do I need to add more "doesn't pass the smell test" evidence? The science is at best uncertain, at worst fraudulent.
In one breath, Oscar says this:
And this opposition isn’t about that balancing test always talked about – you know, the concept that we should recognize and take into consideration what such regulation could mean in terms of costs to businesses and what that means to jobs and the economy. I’m fine with that.
And in the next, contradicts himself:
But what I’m hearing here – this lack of an alternative – is that there is no balancing on the other end – the cost to health and welfare of future generations. It’s only the immediate cost that should be factored in.
So, according to Oscar, while he's ok with looking at cost to business, jobs and the overall economy, please ignore it and immediately impoverish and kill the current generation so future generations can be spared a "maybe". I say kill because a lack of cheap, abundant energy is what makes life something other than "nasty, brutish and short".
Another Big Steamin' Pile from Oscar.