Raw Story’s Eric Dolan reports:
Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), who will become the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee this week, indicated Sunday that he would block Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) greenhouse gas regulations.
“We are not going to let this administration regulate what they’ve been unable to legislate,” Rep. Upton told Fox News host Chris Wallace. “We’re going to have early, early hearings on this. We’re going to see exactly what their analysis is on its impact on jobs.”
“There’s also something called the Congressional Review Act, that within 60 days of rules being published, Congress can take this up and with an up-or-down vote, it is filibuster-proof in the Senate,” he added.
The Congressional Review Act was enacted in 1996 and allows Congress to overrule federal regulations issued by government agencies. It has only been successfully used once…
In an interview published today by the Fort Collins Coloradoan, Rep.-elect Cory Gardner echoes Rep. Upton, though he’s careful to not use the word “block” in relation to the EPA’s new carbon emission rules–Gardner is all about “oversight” in his interview. Gardner’s seat on the same Energy and Commerce Committee means he’ll be front and center for the hearings; though it’s likely to amount to no more than symbolism that dies in the Senate or the President’s desk.
And the likely futility of GOP moves to block the EPA from regulating carbon emissions isn’t stopping local enviromental groups from telling their members exactly what they think of Gardner’s comments–perhaps not getting off to the best start constituent outreach-wise. If we were Gardner, we’d be cautious about joining too eagerly in the new House majority’s various anticipated grandstands, at least until he knows what his district is going to look like in 2012.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Colorado GOP Peeing Its Collective Pants Over Trump Visit
BY: JohnInDenver
IN: Trump Calls His Own Bluff On Aurora
BY: kwtree
IN: Arizona Republican Party Sends Second Mail Piece for Gabe Evans
BY: Ben Folds5
IN: Trump Calls His Own Bluff On Aurora
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Colorado GOP Peeing Its Collective Pants Over Trump Visit
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Trump Calls His Own Bluff On Aurora
BY: harrydoby
IN: Trump Calls His Own Bluff On Aurora
BY: harrydoby
IN: Colorado GOP Peeing Its Collective Pants Over Trump Visit
BY: Conserv. Head Banger
IN: Colorado GOP Peeing Its Collective Pants Over Trump Visit
BY: Genghis
IN: Colorado GOP Peeing Its Collective Pants Over Trump Visit
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
Yes, that’s what Gardner should do. Hold back so the Dead Guvs can call him a sellout!
To the communist carbon cap.
We must not stop the industrial machine, please feel free to foul our air as much as possible. Regulations! We don’t need no stinking regulations (just stinking air)
Losers
Not only are corporations “people” but they are “people” who should have the right to poison me and then bill taxpayers for their inconvenience if I fail to suffer quietly.
What an honor it is to have a True Conservative™ like GOPweenie posting at COPols.
on gutting environmental safeguards.
Let the voters in Colorado see exactly what they got in this Neanderthal.
Show us your true colors Rory. Your allegiance to the corporations should never be in doubt.
Interesting that the (coughs) true conservative’s answer to too big government is more government.
Or maybe I missed the meme of why HCR is so bad.
Under the CRA, a regulation is nullified if both chambers of Congress pass an identical pronouncement (called a “joint resolution”) saying so. The joint resolution is NOT a bill that would enact a statute, which means it does not require a presidential signature to take effect.
That, at least, is the intent of the CRA, which was enacted by the Republican Congress (and, yes, signed by President Clinton, since CRA is a statute).
The question, though, is whether it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to disapprove executive branch action by joint resolution. There are good arguments that, in fact, Congress could do so only by passing a bill subject to presidential approval or veto.
That’s one reason CRA has been used only once in the nearly fifteen years its been on the law books. I think it is likely that the Obama administration, which seems generally intent on preserving presidential prerogatives, would act to defend rulemaking authority against any attempt to invoke the CRA.
The CRA, as it presently exists, may be unconstitutional.
For the same reason the line item veto was unconstitutional.
Remind me not to play you in Chess.
The problem with using CRA as I see it is that the Republicans screwed up big time nominating not ready for prime time nuts like O’Donnell and Angle and lost the Senate. Hoping that Democrats will pass an pro-Republican resolution in the Senate right now seems blatantly stupid but we are dealing with Rory Gardner here aren’t we. Looks more and more like the abortion ploy where they make a lot of noise about how tough they are but do nothing about it.