Lisa Murkowski has dusted off of provision of the 1996 Congressional Review Act that allows Congress to overturn administrative action, using a "resolution of disapproval." The constraints of the resolution of disapproval are that it has to be a joint resolution--like any other bill it also has to pass the House and be signed by the president to be implemented. But it also has advantages--it's not subject to a filibuster, so the vote threshold is 51 rather than 60 votes. But, given the fact that it's a direct attack on the executive branch's rule-making capability and that the executive will most likely veto any resolution of disapproval, it essentially has a 67 vote threshold in the Senate. (If you're interested in the details of how this works, this law review note [pdf] provides a very good overview.)
All that, including the fact that President Obama has vowed to veto this should it clear both the Senate and House hurdles, means Murkowski won't prevail. That out of the way, what exactly is she trying to do? She's trying to strip the EPA's authority to regulation greenhouse gasses. She's trying to nullify all of the scientific evidence that those greenhouse gasses are cooking the globe.
Sen. Kerry's office sends the quick fact sheet:
MURKOWSKI AMENDMENT: CLAIMS VERSUS REALITY
This morning, Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) failed to defend her effort to undercut the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect America’s health and environment from pollution that speeds the climate change crisis.
...ON JOB CREATION FOR AMERICANS
CLAIM: Senator Murkowski and Minority Leader McConnell said EPA regulations will lead to job losses and burden our economy.
REALITY: According to a Union of Concerned Scientists analysis, the EPA’s vehicle standards will save Americans $34 billion by 2020, reduce oil consumption by 1.2 million barrels a day by 2020 and create up to 20,000 new jobs in the auto industry.
Furthermore, according to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, comprehensive climate and energy legislation like the American Power Act would result in an average annual increase in U.S. employment of 200,000 jobs annually.
...ON EPA’S HISTORY AND AUTHORITY
CLAIM: Senator Murkowski alleges that EPA’s endangerment finding represents an “unprecedented power grab” bypassing Congress.
REALITY: According to Russell Train, EPA Administrator to two Republican Presidents – President Nixon and President Ford - “in its 2007 ruling, Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court affirmed the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, declaring that these emissions ‘fit well within’ the Clean Air Act‘s definition of an ‘air pollutant.’ The subsequent endangerment finding, based on the conclusions of scientists in both the Obama and George W. Bush Administrations, determined that greenhouse gases endanger human health or welfare and must therefore be regulated under the law.”
...ON MURKOWSKI’S SUPPORT FOR CONGRESSIONAL ACTION
CLAIM: Senator Murkowski insists that it is Congress’ role to write the rules to regulate greenhouse gases.
REALITY: The Senate has a comprehensive energy and climate bill—the American Power Act—which she is yet to support. Even further, she’s avoided supporting any bill that sends a price signal on carbon which will reinvigorate our economy, create millions of jobs and transition America towards clean renewable energies.
As National Journal’s Ron Brownstein wrote today, ““It’s reasonable to argue that Congress, not EPA, should decide how to regulate carbon. But most of those senators who endorsed Murkowski’s resolution also oppose the most plausible remaining vehicle for legislating carbon limits: the comprehensive energy plan that Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joe Lieberman, ID-Conn., recently released. Together, those twin positions effectively amount to a vote for the energy status quo.”
Just yesterday: Murkowski has said, “My hope is that we would be able to focus on a response package that addresses the situation in the Gulf and we do an energy bill ... separate from anything that puts a price on carbon.”
On the floor this morning, Sen. Boxer summed it up well:
"When our children get sick, they don't take them -- with all due respect -- to Senator Boxer for a check-up or Senator Murkowski for a check-up. They go to the pediatrician."
"Overturning a scientific funding that states that carbon pollution is a threat to the health and well-being of the American public is a dangerous step. It would lead us down a perilous road that sets a precedent for appealing other scientific findings...Imagine if we had done this on lead."
Murkowski's resolution will not prevail. But there's an outside chance it passes the Senate, which would be a travesty because it would mean Democrats (and it's going to be the usual suspects and the coal state Dems, like Rockefeller) are signing on to this anti-science, anti-good government, and obstructionist Republican effort. Same old, same old.
Call your Dem Senator (you can use this handy tool from Clean Energy Works), particularly if your Dem Senator is Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Byrd....