Congress is acting to shackle Obama's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the its efforts to impose strict regulations on greenhouse gas emissions. Two bills before Congress and a resolution in the Senate have already garnered impressive bi-partisan support.

The first is a bill introduced January 9, 2009 by U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), H.R. 391. Refreshingly unlike much legislation before Congress, H.R. 391 amounts to a mere two straightforward sentences which read: "Section 302(g) of the Clean Air Act is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: 'The term 'air pollutant' shall not include carbon dioxide, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, or sulfur hexafluoride.' Nothing in the Clean Air Act shall be treated as authorizing or requiring the regulation of climate change or global warming." The bill has 151 cosponsors, most of whom signed a discharge petition in July 2009 to prompt action on the legislation which has been sitting stagnant in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce since its introduction.

"The rules proposed by the EPA are a virtual gun to the head of Congress," said Rep. Blackburn in a September press release. "The EPA is rushing to implement [Cap and Trade legislation] before it is passed. Sweeping reform like this must be left to Congress, as representatives of the people, to implement; not unaccountable bureaucrats at the EPA."

Representative Blackburn's legislation and comments pre-empted the EPA's December 7th "endangerment finding," which officially declared carbon dioxide and other alleged greenhouse gases a menace to public health and welfare. The ruling paves the way for the agency to impose the most strict emissions standards in history. Three days later, a White House official brazenly told the press if Congress does not take action, "the EPA is going to have to ... regulate in a command-and-control way."

Hard on the heels of the "endangerment finding," Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) introduced H.R. 4396, the Save Our Energy Jobs Act, legislation which would prohibit the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases. Congressman Pomeroy issued a press release predicting dramatic increases in energy and unemployment rates if EPA authority is not disloged. "Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions ... is irresponsible and just plain wrong," said Congressman Pomeroy. "I am not about to let some Washington bureaucrat dictate new public policy that will raise our electricity rates and put at risk the thousands of coal-related jobs in our state." The Pomeroy bill is specifically aimed at the April 2007 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that the Clean Air Act authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions if the agency finds those emissions harmful to public health and welfare. H.R. 4396 has five co-sponsors and has also been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce awaiting further action.

On the Senate side, more modest means are being pursued. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) introduced a resolution (S.J.Res. 26) to disapprove and nullify the EPA's December endangerment finding. Unfortunately, the resolution would only prevent regulations for stationary sources for one year but would not prevent the EPA from regulating automobile emissions. Senator Murkowski showed blatant ignorance of the fact the U.S. Constitution does not authorize Congress to regulate greenhouse gases when she said in a press release, "Congress is the only agency in the United States with the power to tackle the [climate change] problem in a responsible manner." However, the legislation would at least be a first step toward restraining the EPA's unconstitutional regulatory power. Senator Murkowski's attempt to attach the resolution as an amendment to the agency's fiscal 2010 spending bill was blocked, but S.J. Res 26 can still be amended to other legislation or introduced as a stand-alone bill. Forty senators have signed on as cosponsors.

Photo of Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.): AP Images

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (6)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Mikey Pinkie-rings said:

	So, what's to protect with sulfur hexaflouride? I am on board with the elimination of carbon dioxide from the pollutant list, but I must ask, why is sulfur hexaflouride being exempted too? Isn't that a very poisonous gas? If I understand correctly, it is a byproduct of the aluminum process, and necessary for nuclear enrichment. However, by being exempted, are we doing a good thing?
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: +0

Flu-Bird said:

	Abolish the EPA The EPA has become just another buricratic agency seeking to further stymie american and enforce burdensome regulations on us all its past time to completly abolish the EPA and halt the green nazis
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: +9

Pipe Dream said:

Nothing but a pipe dream When the UN is working tightly with the same individuals who own all the central banks worldwide, the IMF, the World Bank, and the Bank of International Settlements, it's hard to believe our US Congress is going to do anything to prevent the UN's Agenda 21 plan from moving forward. Well, to be honest -- I don't believe it for a second. I feel these types of news stories serve the specific purpose of distracting the public from the core issues. These types of news stories give people some form of hope that the existing system and ownership will bow before the will of the people, somehow. It's a well-crafted pipe dream to ensure people's energies are directed into a bottomless pit.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: -2

Bonnie said:

	Abolish the EPA The EPA was created by Executive Order and makes rules which are legally binding. The is usurpation of legislative authority which rests solely in the hand of Congress. The EPA is not in compliance with the United States Constitution and there is no way to bring it into compliance. It must be abolished and all of its rules and regulations declared null and void.
	report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010
Votes: +11

mickey white said:

Marsha Blackburn Marsha Blackburn Voted FOR: Omnibus Appropriations, Special Education, Global AIDS Initiative, Job Training, Unemployment Benefits, Labor-HHS-Education Appropriations, Agriculture Appropriations, U.S.-Singapore Trade, U.S.-Chile Trade, Supplemental Spending for Iraq & Afghanistan, Prescription Drug Benefit, Child Nutrition Programs, Surface Transportation, Job Training and Worker Services, Agriculture Appropriations, Foreign Aid, Vocational/Technical Training, Supplemental Appropriations, UN “Reforms.” Patriot Act Reauthorization, CAFTA, Katrina Hurricane-relief Appropriations, Head Start Funding, Line-item Rescission, Oman Trade Agreement, Military Tribunals, Electronic Surveillance, Head Start Funding, COPS Funding, Funding the REAL ID Act (National ID), Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, Thought Crimes “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, Peru Free Trade Agreement, Economic Stimulus, Farm Bill (Veto Override), Warrantless Searches, Employee Verification Program, Body Imaging Screening. Marsha Blackburn Voted AGAINST: Ban on UN Contributions, eliminate Millennium Challenge Account, WTO Withdrawal, UN Dues Decrease, Defunding the NAIS, Iran Military Operations defunding Iraq Troop Withdrawal, congress authorization of Iran Military Operations. Marsha Blackburn is my Congressman. See her unconstitutional votes at : http://tinyurl.com/qhayna Mickey

report abuse vote down vote up

February 02, 2010 | url
Votes: +1

Lee Gonzales said:

Mickey White's research on congressman Blackburn We may have to use her to get the ball rolling on abolishing the EPA. She is after all a politician and knows which way the wind blows. The end of the Richard Nixon's EPA would provide a fresh beeze to the economy. Let us recall that Nixon sounded good to Republicans but once in office he choked back on the economy by imposing wage and price controls, kissed up to the Red Chinese government, declared himself a Keynesian and with his executive pen created the EPA. I doubt if congressman Blackman knows that a member of her party created the EPA but it doesn't matter as long as the EPA is choked back in return by the bill she wrote.

report abuse vote down vote up

February 03, 2010
Votes: +2