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.

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

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