| Bipartisan Majority in Senate Opposes EPA Carbon Criminalization |
|
While Murkowski resolution failed, good news emerges
from Senate debate
Washington, DC – This afternoon the U.S. Senate voted down a measure sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would have stripped the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of its authority to criminalize carbon emissions from stationary sources. Stationary sources include power plants, hospitals, schools, factories and other large buildings that emit above a politically determined level of carbon dioxide emissions on an annual basis.
The measure, called a Resolution of Disapproval, is part of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that allows the legislative branch to overturn regulations made by unelected bureaucrats. The resolution would have only required a simple majority (51) of votes for passage. The Murkowski Resolution was voted down 47-53.
Thomas J. Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, an advocacy group that urged Senators to vote YES on this resolution, issued this statement following the vote:
“Unelected bureaucrats, who aren’t accountable to anyone, are the last people in this town who should be given the reins to regulate every sector of our economy. And while the Murkowski Resolution would have begun the process to overturn this authority, a majority of the Senate, aided by a well-financed anti-energy movement, narrowly won this battle.
“However, the Senate did send an important message today. The Murkowski Resolution fell a few votes short, but when added together with a similar proposal sponsored by Senator Rockefeller, over 51 senators are now on the record opposing EPA’s job-killing authority to regulate carbon emissions. This is good news.
“That said, and contrary to the comments made by Senators from both parties on the Floor today, Congress is equally ill-equipped as the EPA to regulate carbon. Criminalizing economic growth, transportation, and domestic manufacturing, as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax would do, is misguided policy regardless of whether it originates from the EPA or the Congress.”
#####
|
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|







