GOP SLAMS EPA ON TRANSPARENCY DURING MCCARTHY HEARING

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
4/12/13

Senate Republicans pressed Gina McCarthy, the Obama Administration’s pick for Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, with a steady stream of questions about the agency’s transparency policies during her April 11 confirmation hearing. Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee vetting McCarthy’s nomination made little mention of her credentials to lead the agency—most lawmakers concurred that McCarthy is well-suited for EPA’s top post and that her nomination is likely to pass the Senate—and instead slammed the agency for what they said was its “opaque” rulemaking process. “I’m concerned that the central functions of the agency, quite frankly, have been obfuscated by ideology, frustrated by a severe lack of transparency, undermined by non-peer review science that the agency often keeps hidden and implemented without regard to economic consequences,” Committee Ranking Member David Vitter (R-La.) said.

Committee Republicans accused the agency of “manipulating” cost-benefit analyses in order to hide the true economic impact of many of its most controversial air quality rulemakings. Vitter faulted McCarthy for failing to provide the lawmakers with the underlying data used to determine public health benefits and other factors while promulgating rules under the Clean Air Act. Republicans also accused EPA of formulating major regulations via what they described as a “sue and settle” technique—where friendly environmental groups would sue EPA and later negotiate a settlement agreement promising strict clean air and water regulations behind closed doors—as an example of the agency’s lack of transparency. “I’m concerned that EPA’s been circumventing the appropriate administrative process for developing its rules and is settling scores of lawsuits brought on by environmental groups instead of actually litigating them,” Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said. “Even though the states are significantly affected by these [rules], they’re left out of the process.” Lawmakers also pressed McCarthy about the use of email aliases to conduct official business, a move they said could exempt those emails from being searched via the Freedom of Information Act.

McCarthy Promises Climate Action

McCarthy in her opening statement promised that, if confirmed, she would make climate change a priority at EPA. “Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our generation and perhaps the greatest obligation we have to future generations. But I am convinced that we are up to that task. Common-sense steps can be taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while opening up markets for emerging technologies and creating new jobs,” she said, touting fuel efficiency standards for light duty vehicles that were finalized by EPA last year.

When pressed by coal state senators, though, McCarthy also emphasized that she is supportive of the fuel source. “It has been and will continue to be a big part of the U.S. energy picture,” she said. But some coal state lawmakers said they are not thrilled with the way many recent EPA regulations have treated the fuel source. “The EPA is making it impossible for coal miners to feed their families. How many times will this EPA director pull the regulatory lever and allow another mining family fall through the EPA’s trap door to joblessness, poverty and poor health? These people are heroes and they deserve better than what they’re getting from the EPA,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said. In a statement ahead of the confirmation hearing, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued one of the most pointed critiques of McCarthy to date, saying that he was “concerned that Gina McCarthy would continue to foster this administration’s radical environmental and anti-coal jobs agenda.”

Committee Democrats, though, were quick to step up in support of McCarthy’s nomination because of her views on climate change and coal. Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that McCarthy’s bipartisan credentials—having worked for both Democratic and Republican governors as a state environment official in Massachusetts and Connecticut—make her an ideal fit to lead EPA. “Gina, you are one of the best-qualified nominees ever to come before this committee. Your combination of experience, intelligence, energy, expertise and integrity will make you a most effective EPA administrator,” Boxer said. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted that the confirmation hearing was less about McCarthy’s credentials as it was a referendum about lawmakers’ views on climate change. “We’ve heard from previous speakers about the qualifications of Gina McCarthy, but really this is not a debate about Gina McCarthy. This is a debate about global warming and whether or not we’re going to listen to the leading scientists of this country who are telling us that global warming is the most serious planetary crisis that we and the global community face,” he said.

None of the Republicans on the committee explicitly indicated during the hearing that they would be placing a hold on McCarthy’s nomination. Barrasso temporarily blocked McCarthy’s nomination for Assistant Administrator in 2009 due to questions he had about EPA’s endangerment finding. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) vowed last month to hold McCarthy’s nomination until the Obama Administration provides a timeline for moving forward with the regulatory process on a controversial flood control project on the banks of the Mississippi River that has been delayed for years. As of press time, Blunt had not yet indicated whether he had lifted his hold on the nomination.