Competitive Enterprise Institute | 1899 L ST NW Floor 12, Washington, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-331-1010 | Fax: 202-331-0640
Washington, D.C., June 8, 2010 – On Thursday, the U.S. Senate will vote on a resolution to stop the Environmental Protection Agency from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.
The resolution of disapproval, S.J.Res.26, sponsored by Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), would overturn EPA’s finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare. The endangerment finding is both trigger and precedent for sweeping policy changes never approved by Congress.
CEI senior fellow Marlo Lewis will speak Wednesday in support of S.J.Res.26 at an 11:00 a.m. Capitol Hill press conference hosted by Americans for Prosperity .
Sen. Murkowski’s resolution 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.