The Next War on EPA Regulations

Photo by republicanconference, <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/republicanconference/3508402818/sizes/m/in/photostream/">via Flickr</a>.

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


The new Congress kicks off on Wednesday, and Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), the incoming chair of the energy and commerce committee, has promised to put regulation of climate-changing emissions on the top of the docket—blocking it, that is. And he’s indicated that he may use an obscure tactic to thwart the new EPA rules governing emissions from major sources of greenhouse gas pollution.

Upton recently suggested that he may seek to employ the rarely-used “resolution of disapproval” to block the EPA’s regulations. “We are not going let this administration regulate what they have been unable to legislate,” Upton said on Fox News Sunday (via The Hill), referring to the fact that the Senate did not pass a climate law last year. Upton told Fox a disapproval resolution might be one way they could block the EPA’s carbon rules, which officially began phasing in on January 2.

The disapproval resolution was authorized by the Congressional Review Act of 1996 as part of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America,” and it allows Congress to overturn regulations from the executive branch within 60 days of their publication in the Federal Register. It is rarely invoked and even more rarely successful. Republicans did succeed in using it in 2001 to block new ergonomics rules from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration under the Clinton administration, but it hasn’t been successfully employed since. (If Congress does succeed in blocking an administrative rule, the agency that issued it is also barred from creating any future rule that is substantially similar to the blocked one.)

With Republicans in control of the House and the majority of the caucus openly dismissive of the science on global warming, a disapproval resolution would probably pass in that chamber with ease. Of course, a disapproval resolution would likely be vetoed by the president, as Upton noted on Sunday. But as he also mentioned, there are a number of Democrats in favor of axing the EPA’s new emissions rules. Six Senate Democrats voted for a disapproval resolution that Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) put forward last June that would have blocked the EPA’s finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to human health, a finding that led to the new regulations. Four of those Democrats will return to the Senate this year, and at least one freshman Democrat, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, has also pledged to shoot down EPA regulations. Because a disapproval resolution requires just 51 votes in the Senate—rather than the 60-vote hurdle most legislation needs to clear these days—it could actually go somewhere.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate