EPA Abuses

Open Email to Sen. Cruz:

Dear Sen. Cruz,
Thank you for your form letter on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
You said ,"The new emissions rules for existing power plants and the redefinition of navigable waters are overreaches that typify the Administration’s troubling behavior and threaten countless jobs. Controversial and harmful policies like these—especially those that seek to expand the role of the federal government—should be decided by Congress, not by a unilateral decree by the Obama administration."
I agree with you completely, but the question is, "What are you going to do about it?"
Congress set up the EPA and supposedly included guidelines on its responsibility and the courses of action it should take to satisfy the requirements of Congress. It also appointed the President as the Chief Executive Officer to control EPA operations. If this were a private business, the Congress, which would be equivalent to a Board of Directors, would have the power to direct the CEO to apply appropriate goals and responsibilities, and if necessary, fire the CEO. With the present state of government, Congress cannot fire the President. However, it can control the EPA program with appropriate funding or dis-funding, which originates in the House. The funding bill for the EPA could be very specific. It could disallow funding for any EPA action, which would be inappropriate from Congress's point of view.
We need EPA. It has done some good work, but it also has become a pawn for the President's ideological agenda. You mentioned new emissions rules for existing power plants. The President has been trying to kill off for many years the use of fossil fuels as an energy source and replace those with solar and wind energy. He has latched onto the emission of carbon dioxide in the burning of fossil fuels and has with insufficient data or even theory, claimed that such carbon dioxide emissions cause global warming with disastrous effects. The EPA has gone along for the ride.
On the positive side, it has previously been shown that the burning of coal containing significant quantities of sulfur gives sulfur dioxide as an emission, which subsequently oxidizes in the atmosphere to sulfur trioxide and is later brought down to earth as it dissolves in falling rain. This is the acid rain effect and is real. The global warming effect from carbon dioxide emissions is unreal. Congress should force the EPA to come up with a substantial set of facts or at least a well-qualified scientific theory that carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels cause global warming. In its program, Congress should also be wary of claims from pseudo-scientists, who have joined the President/EPA bandwagon on carbon dioxide/global warming. They are being paid to do so through University research grants.
With respect to redefining navigable waters, from what Congress originally stipulated, the EPA has really gone out on a limb to foster the President 'S power grab. The EPA is now trying to define every little puddle and every dry streambed in the West as navigable waterways, in order to take control of the small amount of private not already in control of the federal government. Here again, appropriate use of the funding mechanism by Congress might be able to put a stop to that. If not, perhaps the EPA should be sued in federal court by Congress and let the court decide what a navigable waterway is.