Imhofe: With 53 senators opposed, Senate will block cap-trade

One would think that, when it comes to the Gulf spill, our top priorities would be as follows: plug the leak, mitigate and clean up the environmental damage, and provide help to those affected by it. But as President Obama indicated in his Oval Office address last Tuesday night, he sees things quite differently.

In his address President Obama found occasion to trumpet his radical cap-and-trade agenda for the nation’s energy sector. He referred approvingly to the disastrous Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill, which the House narrowly passed last summer. He sent clear signals that he wants the Senate to pass a “strong and comprehensive clean energy and climate bill,” which are Obama code words for cap-and-trade, mandates, taxes, and bureaucracy.

But the Senate will pass no such legislation, because opposition to it runs deep. The vote on June 10 on Sen. Murkowski’s (R-Alaska) resolution to overturn the Obama EPA’s endangerment finding for greenhouse gases is a case in point. Though it failed, 47 to 53, it became clear as the debate progressed that there is a bipartisan majority in the U.S. Senate that either opposes any EPA greenhouse gas regulation, or wants such regulation delayed for two years. That latter option has been proposed by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D.-W.Va.), who voted for the Murkowski resolution.

Thus far, at least six Democrats have pledged support for Rockefeller’s two-year delay. Those six Democrats stole victory away from Murkowski, but combined with the 47 ‘yes’ votes on the resolution (six of whom were Democrats), there are 53 members of the Senate who want to stand in EPA’s way. What’s more, these same senators want nothing to do with Obama’s radical cap-and-trade agenda.

With 4 Dems on board, Murkowski may block EPA power grab

With Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) announcing his support for Sen. Lisa Murkowski's (R-AK) Resolution of Disapproval of the EPA's Endangerment Finding, the measure appears to be within reach of passing. Murkowski has 41 co-sponsors including three Democrats: Sens. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.

As it now stands, Murkowski will need the votes of at least seven Democrats, if the three Republicans who declined to co-sponsor also vote no. Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine is most likely a no vote but this still leaves Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts.

Rockefeller had pushed for alternative legislation that would block the EPA from regulating industrial sources for two years, but he had trouble mustering support. His endorsement of the Murkowski resolution could provide cover to other Democrats who had supported his alternative effort. Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, and Tim Johnson of South Dakota also co-sponsored Rockefeller's bill and should be viewed as potential swing votes in favor of Murkowksi's effort.

Having destroyed the pseudo-science behind global warming, the sane now try to block EPA's fascist social engineering bid

The Senate is set for a key test environmental vote this week and the White House is already threatening a veto.

On Thursday, the Senate will take up Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ak.) EPA Resolution of Disapproval (S.J. Res. 26) under a consent agreement that was reached before the Memorial Day recess.

The resolution would overturn the EPA back door attempt at enacting a national cap and trade energy tax through regulation.

The White House threatened a veto Tuesday, then attempted to link the vote to the disaster in the Gulf.

“The administration and opponents of the disapproval resolution know they’re losing the argument about the costs of EPA climate regulations. They’ve trotted out one red herring after another, but trying to link this bipartisan measure to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill sets a new low,” Murkowski said.

“There is nothing in my resolution that negates fuel economy gains or makes our country more dependent on oil. Falsely linking this effort to the tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico is an insult to those impacted by the spill and to the hundreds of stakeholders that are concerned about the economic consequences of EPA’s climate regulations,” Murkowski continued. “Farmers, manufacturers, small business owners, and Americans from every corner of the country have weighed in to express their support for this resolution. To suggest they are somehow tools of the oil industry for speaking out against the EPA’s regulatory overreach is cynical and categorically untrue.”

“The EPA’s endangerment finding does nothing to help clean up the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that impacted victims receive timely compensation for damages or prevent future spills. To suggest otherwise is opportunistic and it cheapens the ongoing tragedy while deflecting attention from the government’s lackluster response,” Murkowski added. “The only similarity I see between the oil spill and the EPA’s climate regulations is that both are unmitigated disasters. The difference, of course, is that it’s not too late for Congress to stop the EPA’s regulations.”

The Senate resolution has bi-partisan support from 41 co-sponsors as well as from senators like Jay Rockefeller (D-W.V.) with a large state coal mining industry.

“I believe we must send a strong message that the fate of West Virginia's economy, our manufacturing industries and our workers should not be solely in the hands of EPA," Rockefeller said.