Share this Page


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.

Wed, Jan 27, 2010

Now that "bi-partisan" has become the new watch word for change, its use by politicians like Senator Murkowski renders the word meaningless. Really, 35 Republicans and 3 Democrats, means that Washington is pulling together for the good of all? I doubt it!

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

Do you honestly believe that the science of GHG is free from politics? This has been a political issue for years. Look at the mis-statements and exaggerations that have been used to inflame the passions of people who will listen. Of course we also know that information that is counter to the GHG movement has been set aside by those who are working towards proving their ideas as correct. Neither side is completely honest and for EPA to move as they did at this time is premature at best and completely political at worst.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

The EPA and NRDC (National Resource Defense Council) are in my opinion "Domestic Terrorists, hellbent on destroying the Economic Eco-System to fulfill their unrealistic Environmental goals. I would propose that the EPA and NRDC should be sued in a class action suit brought by the entire population of the United States for the Economic Havoc they have propounded upon all of us. The EPA and NRDC are totally disconnected from the needs of the private sector.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

What no mention of that a 2007 Supream Court ruling indicated that the CAA does cover the regulation of GHG. The court told the EPA that they had to create regulation governing GHG.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010 Kelly Boston MA

Don't give more power to the EPA. I understand the EPA reguating pollutants like lead and mercury in the atmosphere, which make people sick and demonstrably damage the environment. This just isn't the case with CO2, a naturally occurring gas. We have better, smarter ways to transition to alternative energy sources (includign nuclear) than giving more power to the EPA. The last thing our country needs for the energy dilemma we face is EPA regulation.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010 David D

Interesting that only one of five responses cited facts to support a position. That inspires me to cite a few facts myself: 1. Harry Reid claimed bipartisan support when one Republican voted in favor of health care, moving it from committee to the floor. 2. Environmental protection is a big money interest, as attested by the wealth amassed by Al Gore in promoting climate change. 3. Treason--the thing that traitors do--is defined as giving aid and comfort to our enemies. I don't understand how this resolution helps North Korea or Iran. 4. The resolution blocks future action and would have no effect on past actions. Air is cleaner now than fifty years ago, and would stay clean under the terms of the resolution. It only affects GHG regulation by the unelected EPA. 5. Senators and congressmen can't be impeached. 6. I fail to grasp precisely who the "real people" are. The senators and representatives that I see on television also "live and breath[e] daily!" (Except for Ted Kennedy, of course.) Those are my facts, which leaves me with two questions: Who should do the throwing, and is that before or after they are convicted? (Remember that Clinton was impeached, but not convicted.)

Tue, Jan 26, 2010 Vince

It's foolhardy to regulate US GHG as pollutants while China, Vietnam, India, et al. continue to disregard the same. How many of those in this blog that believe GHG should be regulated under the CAA continue to shop at Wal Mart, Old Navy, etc. who stock their shelves with products from these countries? You, my fellow Americans, are the REAL hypocrites since you believe in hamstringing US industry. US industry can't compete with cheap imports with no environmental/worker protection regulation and subsequently relocate to countries with no/minimal regulation and produce your 99 cent padlocks, flip flops, etc. What about the environmental damage being done by your purchasing decisions (buying cheap imports at Wal Mart)? You preach environmental sustainability but are accessories to the very pollution you disdain. Spare me your rhetoric. Until other countries are forced to perform on a level playing field (equitable environmental/worker safety laws), then I have no symathetic ear for destroying US Industry and will vote for those representatives who want to protect industry. I care more about me and my familiy's well being than exporting pollution for cheap Chinese c**p you want to purchase.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

It's the same sad song we have heard for 30 plus years. It is sung every time a new environmental regulation is proposed. America has done pretty darn well in spite of all those horrid environmental regulations. But hey, why give the issue to the scientific and engineering community, who might actually resolve some of the problems, when politicians can debate it forever?

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

Really, bipartisan...35 REP's and THREE (3) Dem's and that's BIPARTISAN?!?

Tue, Jan 26, 2010 Mike J.

If you understood the CAA and the limits it sets, (250 tons???) you would understand and back this resolution. Hint: most homes emit 250 tons or more of CO2 in a year. Are we going to permit every house???? The average herd of cows emits significantly more than 250 tons, are we going to make the california cow frown?? Understand what you are advocating before you shoot you mouth off and you will at least look inteligent.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010 Jay Boisseau

If you believe that Congress will put environmental protection above big money special interests, you must be crazy!

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

I have to go along with congress on this one - The EPA control of GHG well may be the straw that broke the camel's back for US Industry.

Tue, Jan 26, 2010

Murkowski and the rest of the traitorous conservative ilk in Congress continue to oppose those issues of greatest importance to this country - namely development of energy and environmental policies, regulations and practices that will truly allow the U.S. to continue to thrive and grow. This proposal is a blatant attack on the gains that have been realized over the past 40 years, attempting to completely undermine and neutralize our environmental protection capabilities. Not only should this proposal be rejected in the strongest terms possible - the Senators involves should be impeached and thrown onto the streets to learn how the real people of this country live and breath daily!

Add your Comment

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