The House just voted 255-172 to pass H.R. 910, to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. The vote reflect bipartisan support for Congress exercising its responsibilities in setting energy, environmental and economic policy.

We’ll post the roll call vote when it becomes available.

UPDATE (3:18 p.m.): That was quick. The roll call vote is here. It shows 19 Democrats joining 236 Republicans in voting for passage.

UPDATE (3:30 p.m.): Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) of the House Energy and Commerce Committee issues a statement, “U.S. House Puts Families First, Approves Bipartisan Bill to Stop EPA From Driving up Gasoline and Energy Prices, Harming Job Creation.” Included are comments from Energy and Power Subcommittee Chairman Ed Whitfield (R-KY).

The release also notes the NAM’s support for the bill. Thank you for the mention.

From Politico Pro, “Message Sent? Democrats cross over to smack down ‘rogue’ EPA”, via Sen. Jim Inhofe’s EPW Press Blog:

Rep. Dennis Cardoza, a California Democrat, told POLITICO earlier this week that there’s growing opinion among Democrats that EPA is becoming a “rogue agency,” adding that the White House needs to take action to curb the agency’s power. “I think the president’s out of step on this one, and he’s going to have to get his agency under control,” he said.

In the Senate on Wednesday, even Democrats who are typically backers of the Obama administration – like Max Baucus of Montana, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Carl Levin of Michigan – jumped on the anti-EPA bandwagon to endorse Democratic amendments to curtail the agency’s power. Those amendments were aimed at allowing vulnerable Democrats to take slaps at EPA that could protect them in upcoming elections.

The votes from Wednesday, April 6, on amendments to S. 493:

Sixty votes were needed for adoption of Sen. McConnell’s amendment to block the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

Among Democrats, Sens. Manchin, Pryor, Landrieu voted aye. We thank them. (UPDATE: 9:45 a.m. Thursday: And Sen Ben Nelson (D-NE). Thank you, as well.)

Sen. Susan Collins of Maine was the only Republican to vote no.

Very sorry to see Senators from energy and manufacturing states vote to surrender the Legislature’s energy and environmental policy-making responsibilities to the Environmental Protection Agency. Their vote not only will lead to higher energy costs and fewer manufacturing jobs, but a continued centralization of power in the Executive Branch.

Over at the EPA, they’d be popping champagne corks, except, you know, that would emit carbon pollution. Guess they’ll have to settle for the pleasures of unrestrained regulatory authority.

From The Hill’s E2 Wire energy blog, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: Senate, House climate votes on tap“:

LATE BREAKING: The Senate will vote on a GOP-backed plan to kill Environmental Protection Agency climate change rules Wednesday afternoon, according to Democrats and a spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Lawmakers will vote on McConnell’s amendment to small-business legislation, as well as several Democratic alternatives. The amendments need 60 votes to pass.

Votes on the amendments to S. 493, the small business reauthorization bill, begin at 4 p.m.

Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute explains what the vote signifies in a post at BigGovernment.com, “Senate to Vote on EPA’s Power Grab: Does the Rule of Law Still Matter?”

The Senate will, one presumes, finally vote either this week or next to block EPA from imposing President Obama’s ‘other way to skin the cat’ of Kyoto-style energy rationing, by using the Clean Air Act – a law that EPA’s own public filings inescapably acknowledge was never intended for such purpose. What will be at stake is little less than the rule of law itself.

Policy sanity also stands to take a beating, or else gain a new lease on life. The United States derives over 80% of its total energy from the three fossil fuels now being regulated by the Clean Air Act on the basis of EPA’s Endangerment Finding, which by design strangles our ability to use them. Further, the Obama Administration has in effect decided that the EPA knows how to run the U. S. economy.

With über-green Germany, even nuke-happy France, appearing set to ramp up their coal use in the wake of Japan’s nuclear incident, the first rational response would be to call off EPA’s war on coal. Not to fight like mad to preserve and advance it.

Got up and opened the window to a bright and beautiful morning, took a deep breath and exhaled carbon pollution.

Watered the plants on the window sill, applauding my courage because that greenery had been consuming so much carbon pollution it was bound to be toxic.

Forgot to reset the toaster and burnt the toast. Had to scrape off the carbon pollution, but it was still edible.

Took a shower, creating the most potent greenhouse gas known to man, water vapor. Breathed a sigh of relief, knowing it wasn’t carbon pollution. But then felt bad about breathing.

In other serious lines of argumentation, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), March 31, Congressional Record, Page S2013:

Jeez. Carbon dioxide causes strokes? Now I feel really guilty.

The House begins its legislative business at noon today, and on the floor schedule is H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, i.e., the bill to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Twelve amendments sponsored by Democrats are scheduled for consideration, as well.

The National Association of Manufacturers sent a “Key Letter” to the House Tuesday reaffirming the NAM’s support for the bill.

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) cited NAM’s concerns in an op-ed in The Washington Examiner today, “Capping the EPA’s backdoor energy tax.” The column is an excellent summary of what’s at stake for the manufacturing, the costs of energy, the economy and jobs.

No matter what side of the ideological spectrum you’re on, it is crystal clear that economic harm will certainly result from these rules and regulations, and it is incumbent on Congress to issue this cease-and-desist order to the EPA.

In the 11th Congressional District of Illinois, I represent an area that is home to three nuclear power plants, hydropower plants, ethanol and biodiesel plants, and two oil refineries. Our district embodies the all-of-the-above approach to energy that we must stand for.Nuclear energy production alone employs more than 2,500 people through the Illinois Valley.

Manufacturers and energy producers at the local and national level, such as Edison Power in my district and the National Association of Manufacturers, have made it clear that the Energy Tax Prevention Act is necessary in order to curtail the EPA’s overreaching regulations and create the certainty job creators need to grow their businesses and get more folks back to work here at home.

If Congress fails to pass this legislation, our country will be giving the EPA the green light to impose greenhouse gas regulations, without congressional authority, which will inevitably increase energy and consumer prices for American families and ship U.S. jobs overseas.

The National Association of Manufacturers today sent a “Key Vote” letter to House members calling for their support for H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act, which would block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A House floor vote is scheduled for Wednesday.

Excerpt from the letter.

At a time when our economy is attempting to recover from the most severe recession since the 1930s, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, with no guidance from Congress, will cost jobs and slow economic growth.

The Energy Tax Prevention Act seeks to ensure a healthy and productive discussion in Congress on harmonizing our nation’s energy, environmental and economic needs before the EPA regulates GHG emissions from stationary sources, including manufacturing facilities. Congressional debate and consensus on this issue is especially critical, as the Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon.

As consumers of roughly one-third of our nation’s energy, manufacturers in the United States support a comprehensive, federal climate policy within a framework that will cause no economic harm while granting sufficient time to deploy low-carbon technologies.

The White House has issued a veto threat, making its argument on the deceptive conflation of greenhouse gas emissions with pollutants: We need EPA regulation of carbon dioxide in order to prevent asthma and bronchitis. It’s as if supporters of EPA regulation, including the Administration, lack both the intellectual and political confidence to argue the true substance of the legislation. They instead fall back on the specious “carbon pollution” claims.

You can understand a power-seeking Executive Branch arrogating legislative authority to itself, but why would Congress permit it? Yet Senate leadership still will not allow a floor vote on the McConnell-Inhofe amendment — the companion to the House bill — asserting the legislative branch’s policymaking prerogatives. The Hill’s E2 Wire reports the twists and turns and abdications in a round-up of Capitol Hill energy news, “OVERNIGHT ENERGY: House mulls rules of engagement on climate battle.”

Marketplace Morning Report does a brief story this morning on the National Association of Manufacturers’ ad campaign against EPA regulation of greenhouse gas emission. (See www.NoNewRegs.org) In the competing sound bites, Frank O’Donnell musters his usual attention to fact and detail.

Association lobbyist Alicia Meads.

Alicia Meads: Profit margins are extremely tight right now and we feel that these regulations are hurting that more and will cause job loss.

Frank O’Donnell heads the environmental group Clean Air Watch. He says the EPA regulations would save manufacturers money. They would have to be more energy efficient. That means lower power bills.

Frank O’Donnell: To hear these crazy horror stories from the business community just makes my head spin because it’s like a bizarro world.

Well, it’s not the NAM that claims higher energy prices saves manufacturers money and lowers power bills. Talk about Bizarro.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is the only Democrat to cosponsor the amendment by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to block the Environmental Protection Agency from extending regulatory control over carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. In an interview today on Hoppy Kercheval Show, Manchin made the newsworthy comment that he expected 13 to 15 Democrats to eventually support the amendment.

Question: “You signed onto the McConnell Amendment as a Democrat, but you’re the only Democrat I think who’s signed on to the McConnell Amendment.  Why can’t you get – you’re a persuasive person, you wear people down – why can’t you get other Democrats to sign onto the McConnell amendment?”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): “Well, I’m working on them I can tell you that from the standpoint – and I don’t know whether they don’t realize, I think a few more votes – I think they’re going to vote for it, I really do.  Now I guess they don’t want to take the lead on something that I feel so strongly about. I just believe that the EPA has totally overstepped its boundaries.  It was never an agency put in a position to the create public policy that’s going to affect us and change our way of life, I truly believe. So I feel strong enough to sign on. Other people might not, but I believe there’ll be 13 to 15 democrats that will vote for it.”

The possibility of the McConnell Amendment passing probably explains why it did not come to a floor vote this week.

No matter the amendment’s fate, it’s heartening to see Sen. Manchin invoke a founding precept of the American Republic, the separation of powers in which the legislative branch, Congress, makes policy by writing law and the Executive Branch carries out the law. In the many floor speeches we watched this week, Senate opponents of the McConnell amendment by and large failed to address  that matter of principle. They appeared willing to surrender their role as lawmakers just because the EPA is a doing a good thing.

In our decade of involvement with the North Dakota Legislature, we saw lawmakers of both political parties consistently articulate their belief that they belonged to policymaking branch of government. The principle informed their debates and guided their votes. If only the U.S. Senate were as diligent and thoughtful vis a vis the EPA.

At some point, the Senate will vote on whether Congress or the EPA will set economic and environmental policy. In the debate leading up to the vote, all Senators should address what they consider their proper role as a legislator. Sen. Manchin’s comments today provide a good way to frame the question: “Do you believe the EPA should be in the position to create public policy that’s going to affect us and change our way of life?”

(Hat tip: Ed Morrissey at HotAir.com, “Rockefeller says McConnell-Inhofe EPA bill ‘theological’ and ‘immature,’ can’t pass.“)

The Hill reports: “After days of delay, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said Wednesday that a vote on an amendment to permanently block the Environmental Protection Agency’s climate regulations would be delayed until Thursday afternoon at the earliest. The date and time for a vote on the amendment, which was offered by Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), is very much in flux.”

The Associated Press covers the pressures, political and otherwise, leading up to the Senate vote, noting the NAM’s campaign. From “Congress aims to curb EPA’s power over gases, bugs“:

The National Association of Manufacturers warned lawmakers and President Barack Obama this week “to carefully consider the severe economic impact these job-killing regulations will have on energy prices and on businesses and families across country.”

The group backed up its warning with a new TV and radio campaign attacking EPA regulations in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Maine and Arkansas. Each of those states has a senator facing a potentially difficult re-election race next year, and Obama is likely to compete hard in all but Arkansas.

The citation is great, especially since the story contains two direct quotes from opponents of Sen. McConnell’s amendment and none from supporters. Balance, AP, balance!

The NAM’s ads and materials on the EPA’s attempt to exert regulatory control over all economic activity in the country are available at http://www.NoNewRegs.org.