2010

Sen. Boxer now compares Sen. Murkowski’s resolution to an attempt to repeal the Surgeon General’s famous report in 1964 linking cigarette smoking to cancer.

She ignores the fact that the Surgeon General’s report was purely an assessment of the medical literature. It had no legal force and effect. Indeed, the Surgeon General’s report did not even provide policy recommendations.

If EPA’s endangerment finding were simply one agency’s review of the scientific literature, the Senate would not have any business voting on it either. However, unlike the Surgeon General’s report, the endangerment finding is both trigger and precedent for policy changes potentially affecting millions of businesses and homes and trillions of dollars in cumulative GDP.

Congress never intended for the Clean Air Act to be a framework for climate policy, never voted for EPA to use the Act as such a framework, and never signed off on the far-reaching regulatory cascade the endangerment finding triggers.

Therefore it is entirely proper for the Senate to debate and vote on the ”legal force and effect” of the endangerment finding. Indeed, overturning the endangerment finding is a constitutional imperative.

Sen. Boxer (D-Calif.) is now speaking against the Murkowski resolution (S.J.Res.26). Her demagoguery knows no bounds.

She asks us to imagine a hundred Senators, who are not scientists, who are not health experts, presuming to determine which pollutant is dangerous and which is not. “It is not our expertise, it is not our purview.” “It is ridiculous.” “It is the height of hubris.” “What are we going to do next, repeal the laws of gravity?” “Maybe we’ll say the Earth is flat and will argue that one too.” “We could pass a resolution that says there shouldn’t be any more rain, and then I guess there wouldn’t be any more rain.”

Boxer ignores — and conceals — the simple fact that the Murkowski resolution would overturn the “legal force and effect” of the endangerment finding, not its scientific reasoning or conclusions.

The resolution is a referendum not on climate science but on who shall make climate policy: Elected lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?

Boxer champions the endangerment finding because it empowers EPA to implement policies that she and other members of the greenhouse faction have been unable to secure the old fashioned way — by ratifying treaties and enacting laws.

Opponents of S.J.Res.26 will do and say anything to avoid restoring political accountability to climate policymaking.

Today, the Senate will debate and vote on S.J.Res.26, Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval to overturn the legal force and effect of EPA’s endangerment finding, which is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved.

The Obama Administration and the Auto Alliance strongly oppose S.J.Res.26, claiming that it would harm the auto industry by blocking implementation of the joint fuel economy/greenhouse gas emission standards rule that EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finalized in March.

The National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) demolishes the Administration’s argument in a letter sent to U.S. Senators yesterday afternoon.

If Congress wants NHTSA to tighten fuel economy standards, the agency already has all the authority it needs under the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act as modified by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA). NHTSA’s authority does not come from the Clean Air Act and in no way depends on EPA’s endangerment finding.

Under the EPA/NHTSA joint rule, three different agencies will set fuel economy standards — NHTSA, EPA, and the California Air Resources Board (CARB). Enactment of S.J.Res.26 would indeed block implementation of the rule. But that would benefit the auto industry by helping to “restore a single national fuel economy standard, with rules set by Congress.”

“Opponents of S.J.Res. 26 fail to explain how being regulated by three different fuel economy standards with three different sets of rules administered by three different agencies is more beneficial than a single national fuel economy standard,” the NADA letter points out.

The letter provides a detailed chart showing that there are important differences and inconsistencies between NHTSA’s fuel economy standards and EPA’s greenhouse gas emission standards, as well as inconsistencies between the federal standards and the CARB standards.

NADA’s letter concludes:

The EPA and CARB fuel economy standards in effect today have been foisted on the American people by bureaucratic fiat. It is extremely unlikely any Senator would even propose a three-different-fuel-economy standards framework, especially one filled with exemptions, lower standards for some, and conflicting policies, Passage of S.J.Res. 26 would partially correct this onerous and redundant policy.

Columnist Tim Carney notes that BP, responsible for the massive oil spill, is “a close friend of big government whenever it serves the company’s bottom line.” It lobbied for President Obama’s $800 billion stimulus package, the “cap-and-trade” global-warming bills backed by Obama, and “the Wall Street bailout” that Obama voted for.  “BP has more Democratic lobbyists than Republicans.”  Obama is the biggest recipient of campaign cash from BP executives.

Obama’s global warming legislation expands ethanol subsidies, which cause famine, starvation, and food riots in poor countries by shrinking the food supply, and also result in deforestation, soil erosion, and water pollution. Subsidies for biofuels like ethanol are a big source of corporate welfare: “BP has lobbied for and profited from subsidies for biofuels . . . that cannot break even without government support.”

The $800 billion stimulus package is using taxpayer subsidies to replace U.S. jobs with foreign green jobs. It is also destroying jobs in America’s export sector.

Obama falsely claimed that the stimulus package was needed to prevent “irreversible decline,” but the Congressional Budget Office admitted that it would actually shrink the economy “in the long run.”  Unemployment has skyrocketed past European levels, as big-spending countries have fared worse than thrifty ones.  As the Examiner notes, “If his stimulus program was approved, Obama promised, unemployment would not go above 8 percent . . . The reality is that it passed 10.3 percent.”  In 2008, Obama promised a “net spending cut,” but as soon as he was elected, he proposed massive spending increases.

Obama’s global warming legislation would also drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated.  That’s one reason why many big companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global-warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over competitors that make their products largely in America.  The legislation would result in a tax increase for American consumers of up to $200 billion a year or $1,761 per household.

Unlike other oil companies, which have good records of safety and avoiding spills when it comes to oil drilling, BP has a bad record, earning it the label of “serial environmental criminal” from critics.  The Obama administration granted BP a waiver of environmental regulations in April 2009, yet it blocked Louisiana from protecting its coastline against the oil spill by delaying rather than expediting regulatory approval of essential protective measures.  It has also chosen not to use what has been described as “the most effective method” of fighting the spill, a method successfully used in other oil spills.  Democratic strategist James Carville called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Obama is now using BP’s oil spill to push the global-warming legislation that BP had lobbied for.

On Thursday (June 10, 2010), the Senate will vote on Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval (S.J.Res.26) to overturn the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare.  

The endangerment finding is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes Congress never approved.

Tomorrow, I will speak in support of S.J.Res.26 at an 11:00 a.m. Capitol Hill press conference hosted by Americans for Prosperity. My prepared statement follows.

Prepared Statement of Marlo Lewis

Sen. Murkowski’s resolution of disapproval would stop EPA from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.

The endangerment finding is a classic case of bureaucratic self dealing. EPA has positioned itself to determine the stringency of fuel economy standards, set climate policy for the nation, and even amend provisions of the Clean Air act – powers Congress never delegated to the agency.

Worse, America could end up with a pile of greenhouse gas regulations more costly than any climate bill or treaty the Senate has declined to pass or ratify, yet without the people’s representatives ever voting on it.

The Murkowski resolution puts a simple question before the Senate: Who shall make climate policy — lawmakers who must answer to the people at the ballot box or politically unaccountable bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and activist judges appointed for life?

Because the endangerment finding dramatically expands EPA’s power, the agency fiercely opposes S.J.Res.26, depicting it as an attack on science.

That is nonsense. Although a strong case can be made that the endangerment finding is scientifically flawed, the Murkowski resolution neither takes nor implies a position on climate science.

The resolution would overturn the “legal force and effect” of the endangerment finding, not its reasoning or conclusions. It is a referendum not on climate science but on who should make climate policy.

Climate policy is too important to be made by non-elected bureaucrats. That ought to be a proposition on which all Senators can agree.

The importance of Thursday’s vote is difficult to exaggerate. Nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional system of separated powers and democratic accountability hangs in the balance.

People across the world “are being battered by surging food prices that are dragging more people into poverty, fueling political tensions and forcing some to give up eating meat, fruit and even tomatoes,” reports the Associated Press. High food prices are partly the result of “demand for crops to use in biofuels” like ethanol, which the government subsidizes.

Food prices will rise even further if the global warming legislation backed by President Obama passes, since it expands ethanol subsidies that reward big corporations for turning food into fuel. Ethanol subsidies damage the environment by wiping out forests, polluting water supplies, and eroding the soil. By converting food into fuel, they cause famines and food riots in the world’s poorest countries.  That fuels Islamic extremism in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

President Obama, the biggest recipient of campaign cash from BP, is using BP’s oil spill to push for a global warming bill that is chock full of corporate welfare and environment-destroying ethanol subsidies. The bill was crafted by lobbyists for big companies like BP: “For years, BP has lobbied for climate change legislation, until recently running around with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.” BP has a much worse safety and environmental record than most oil companies, which drill safely and avoid oil spills.

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the BP oil spill “lackadaisical” and “unbelievable” in its “stupidity.”

Until recently, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, citing bureaucratic procedures. Yet the Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009. ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated. Companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over American competitors. The legislation Obama backs may perversely increase pollution by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations.

Talk about chutzpah.  President Obama, the biggest recipient of campaign cash from BP, is using BP’s oil spill to push for a global warming bill that is chock full of corporate welfare and environment-destroying ethanol subsidies.  And the bill is one crafted by lobbyists for big companies like BP: “For years, BP has lobbied for climate change legislation, until recently running around with the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.”

The Obama Administration has done little about the oil spill, even though “BP’s oil gusher is in federal waters, on seabed leased from the federal government,” giving the government the moral responsibility to do something to stop the spill.  Instead, it is adding insult to injury for suffering Gulf Coast residents by imposing a ban on oil drilling that will wipe out at least 20,000 jobs in the Gulf, and perhaps more, according to Louisiana’s governor.

The ban doesn’t apply just to BP, a company with an unusually bad safety record which has been described as a “serial environmental criminal.”  Instead, it applies to the oil industry generally, including the vast majority of oil companies that make safety a priority in drilling (and whose oil wells did not spill even during hurricanes).

Democratic strategist James Carville, who was raised in Louisiana, called Obama’s handling of the oil spill “lackadaisical“ and “unbelievable“ in its “stupidity.”

Until recently, the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Louisiana’s governor to allow Louisiana to build barrier islands to contain the damage from the oil spill, citing bureaucratic procedures.  Yet the Obama administration granted BP a waiver from environmental regulations in April 2009. ABC News reports that the “top recipient of BP-related donations during the 2008 cycle was President Barack Obama himself, who collected $71,000.”

The global warming legislation backed by President Obama would also drive jobs overseas, since it would impose a costly cap-and-trade carbon rationing scheme on American industry, while leaving foreign plants operated by multinational corporations unregulated.  Companies with plants overseas are lobbying for the global-warming legislation, which would give them an advantage over American competitors.  The legislation Obama backs may perversely increase pollution by driving industry overseas to places with fewer environmental regulations.