Bill Introduced to Abolish the EPA
Bills have been introduced in the 115th Congress that have largely gone without any media attention. One of those is a bill that would abolish the Environmental Protection Agency.
- Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY)
- Rep. Steven Palazzo (R-MS)
- Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA)
- Rep. Mike Rogers R-AL)
- Rep. Roger Williams (R-TX)
- Rep. Alexander, Mooney (R-WV)
It would terminate the EPA on December 31, 2018.
“Our small businesses cannot afford to cover the costs associated with compliance, too often leading to closed doors and unemployed Americans,” Gaetz wrote in the email, which was circulated among possible co-sponsors.
Gaetz said the bill would give back power to the states and local government.
“To better protect the environment we should abolish the EPA and downstream resources to states for more effective & efficient protection,” Gaetz said in a Facebook post.
To better protect the environment we should abolish the EPA and downstream resources to states for more effective &…
“The EPA has been doing some drastic things,” Gaetz told Northwest Florida Daily News in February. “They have exceeded their original mission substantially under both Republican and Democratic presidents and violated the sovereignty of the states. I think we need to start fresh.”
“The Constitution reserves lawmaking authority for the legislative branch, not unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch. The EPA makes rules that undermine the voice of the American people and threaten jobs in Kentucky,” co-sponsor Congressman Thomas Massie said in a statement to The Louisville Courier-Journal.
Congressman Massie has a been a staunch conservative constitutionalist when it comes to limiting the federal government. Take a look at him questioning Barach Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah’s EPA Administrator McCarthy.
— Thomas Massie (@RepThomasMassie) November 14, 2013
I’m not exactly sure where in the Constitution there is room for there to be an EPA, but it seems that neither Congress nor President Donald Trump, according to a report from The Atlantic.
Robinson Meyer writes:
His bill will not pass, and the reasons it will not pass are instructive. This is not a “Donald Trump can never become president” situation: There are legal, political, and institutional obstacles that keep H. R. 861 from moving forward.
The first is simple: It is not nearly long enough. A slew of federal laws, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, assume that the EPA exists and charge it with tasks. Just last year, Congress passed a new chemical-safety law that handed new powers to the EPA. Any law seeking to “terminate the EPA” would have to amend all those older laws that delegate authority to the agency. You cannot easily do that in a 10-word sentence.
Second, while the election of Trump—a fierce EPA critic—might indicate otherwise, a large majority of Americans like the agency. Three in five Americans say strict environmental regulations are worth their cost. Even most Republican voters want the EPA to basically stay the same.
“Terminating the EPA,” meanwhile, sounds drastic and bad. (That’s because it would be drastic and bad.) Many House Republicans in swing districts have told voters that they will reduce the agency’s “anti-business” red tape. They have not told voters they would destroy it completely, and it is likely that they will encounter high public resistance if they move to eliminate it.
Third, any major piece of legislation will have to pass a filibuster in the Senate, and it is extremely unlikely that eight Democratic senators could be found who would send the agency to its death. For that matter, it is extremely unlikely that enough Republicans could be found. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican of Maine, rejected Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the EPA on Wednesday because she determined he was too hostile to the agency’s purpose.
Not long enough? If you remove the unconstitutional agency, then you remove all references to it by default. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are unconstitutional. Where in the Constitution is Congress given authority to write law concerning either air or water? They aren’t.
The elimination of the EPA would not only save billions of dollars every year, but open up a free market in a variety of areas, including petroleum products. It would also alleviate a lot of regulations on businesses, which it seems that President Donald Trump would support. So, unless Congressmen are hearing your voice to support this legislation, it will die a slow death in committee. Contact your representative today and ask them to support HR 861.