Senators Offer Disapproval Resolution to Block EPA Endangerment Actions

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on Jan. 21 introduced a bipartisan disapproval resolution to stop the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Murkowski's resolution ─ co-sponsored by 35 Republicans and three Democrats ─ comes in the wake of the EPA's recent endangerment finding, which will result in regulations that Murkowski says will endanger America's economy.

"As the EPA moves closer and closer to issuing these regulations, I continue to believe that this command-and-control approach is our worst option for reducing the emissions blamed for climate change," Murkowski said.

Murkowski, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a strong proponent of moving the nation toward a cleaner energy future, said the disapproval resolution is necessary to avoid the "economic train wreck" that would result from the EPA regulating GHGs under the Clean Air Act.


"Our bipartisan resolution deals with an incredibly important question: whether or not members of this body are comfortable with the actions EPA will take under its current interpretation of the Clean Air Act. I'm not comfortable with those actions, and neither are the senators who have already agreed to add their names to this effort," Murkowski said. "The Clean Air Act was written by Congress to regulate criteria pollutants, not greenhouse gases, and its implementation remains subject to oversight and guidance from elected representatives. We should continue our work to pass meaningful energy and climate legislation, but in the meantime, we cannot turn a blind eye to the EPA's efforts to impose back-door climate regulations with no input from Congress."

Murkowski said EPA regulation could force businesses to cut jobs or close their doors for good; severely restrict domestic energy production, increasing our dependence on foreign suppliers and threatening our national security; make housing less affordable and consumer goods more expensive.

"If you truly believe that EPA climate regulations are good for the country, then vote to oppose our resolution," Murkowski said. "But if you share our concerns, and believe that climate policy should be debated in Congress, then vote with us to support it."

Upon introduction, a disapproval resolution is referred to the committee of jurisdiction, which in this case will be the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. If the committee does not favorably report the resolution, it may be discharged upon petition by 30 senators. Once a disapproval resolution is placed on the Senate calendar, it is then subject to expedited consideration on the Senate floor, and not subject to filibuster.


Comments

Mon, Feb 1, 2010

I applaud Senator Murkowski's efforts given EPA's complete failure to use the best available science in their endangerment finding. It is becoming more and more obvious that EPA is political propaganda organization rather than a scientific one.

Fri, Jan 29, 2010 Env. Prot. Engineer Champaign, IL

Murkowski should say what she means: low paid dirty jobs are better than better paid clean jobs. It is well known that for every job lost when pollution is decreased, at least one new job is created.

Thu, Jan 28, 2010 Brian NYC

While the EPA is now going to regulate GHG (i.e. - Carbon Dioxide) does that mean that everyone is now going to be fined for emitting CO2. Remember, everytime you exhale, you breave out Carbon Dioxide). Just remember the real purpose of Cap and Trade requirements, regardless if it comes from Congress or the EPA, is to enrich the pockets of those in power and their friends. For instance, former Vice President Al Gore. As recent events have shown, the science behind global warming is at best doubtful.

Thu, Jan 28, 2010

The Supreme Court ruling actually covered only tailpipe emissions and the EPA has taken this to mean that they can takeover all emissions. This Supreme Court ruling still puzzles me. I wonder if they would rule the same today knowing how non-existential the consensus and proof actually is.

Wed, Jan 27, 2010 Larry Arizona

This resolution makes sense especially since the case of man-made greenhouse gas's adverse impact on the environment have not been proven. Recent disclosures show that data has been fudged and falsified to reach a pre-determined adverse impact result. Thank goodness for senators that do what is right and scientifically sound regardless of the potential political consequences.

Show All Comments

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above