[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11677-11678]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          McCARTHY NOMINATION

  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, the second topic I would like to address 
is the issue of energy and a national energy tax, which the President 
essentially proposed in his June 25 speech. At that time he unveiled 
what I believe is a national energy tax that is going to discourage job 
creation and increase energy bills for American families.
  This announcement that he made about existing powerplants--existing 
powerplants--came after the administration has already moved forward 
with excessive redtape that makes it harder and more expensive for 
America to produce energy. It also came as a complete surprise to 
Members of the Senate, especially since Gina McCarthy, the President's 
nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency--a nominee whom we 
will be voting on today--since that nominee told Congress that it was 
not going to happen. She is currently the Assistant Administrator of 
the Air and Radiation Office at the EPA. Here is what she told the 
Senate about regulations on existing powerplants, the ones the 
President talked about on June 25. She said:

       The agency is not currently developing any existing source 
     greenhouse gas regulations for power plants.

  None.

       As a result we have performed no analysis that would 
     identify specific health benefits from establishing an 
     existing source program.

  So I would say it is clear with President Obama's June 25 
announcement on existing powerplants that Gina McCarthy is either out 
of the loop or out of control. She either did not tell the truth to the 
Senate in confirmation hearings in response to questions or she does 
not know what is going on in her own agency. Either way, she is not the 
person to lead the EPA.
  I would encourage all of my colleagues to oppose McCarthy in her 
nomination. This has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do 
with having an agency that is accountable to the elected 
representatives of the American people. I believe this behavior is 
indicative of the way the EPA has been run during Gina McCarthy's reign 
as an Assistant Administrator of the EPA.
  Many of my colleagues on the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee have expressed concerns with the lack of transparency at this 
specific agency. One of the major areas of concern is the use of the 
so-called sue-and-settle tactics. This is where environmental activist 
groups sue the EPA or they sue other Federal agencies to make policy. 
Often, they find like-minded colleagues and allies in the EPA. Here is 
how it works. If environmental activists want to impose new 
restrictions on, say, farms, it is easy to sue the government to impose 
those restrictions. At the EPA, rather than fight the restrictions, 
they agree to this and they say: OK. We will do a court settlement. The 
EPA does not contest the new restrictions because the EPA wanted them 
in the first place. The agency just did not want to have to go through 
a lengthy rulemaking process with public comments in the light of day. 
The judge signs off on the agreement, and in a matter of weeks the law 
is made.
  So I asked the nominee in writing: Do you believe sue-and-settle 
agreements are an open and transparent way to make public policy that 
significantly impacts Americans?
  She stated in her answer:

       I recognize that this committee has focused many of its 
     questions on EPA settlement practices and, if confirmed, I 
     commit to learning more--

  Learning more--

     about the Agency's practices in settling litigation across 
     its program areas.

  Well, some of the most egregious sue-and-settle agreements have dealt 
with the Clean Air Act, and she has been in charge of the air office at 
EPA for almost all of President Obama's first term. I find it very 
difficult to believe she did not know what was going on. In fact, in 
answering my next question to her--I asked: Do you believe States and 
communities impacted by sue-and-settle agreements should have a say in 
court agreements that might severely impact them--she said:

       [M]ost litigation against EPA arises under the Clean Air 
     Act. . . .
  Of course. So my question is, either she knew what was going on with 
regard to the Clean Air Act lawsuits against the Agency, the area that 
she completely was in control of, or she does not know what is going on 
in her own department. Once again, either way, such a person should not 
be confirmed to be in charge of the entire EPA.
  As most folks know, my home State, Wyoming, is a coal State. The 
administration has actively sought to eliminate this industry from the 
American economy. It is no surprise to some that many of us coal-State 
colleagues fight vigorously to oppose the President's

[[Page 11678]]

anti-coal policies. Ms. McCarthy has been the President's field general 
in implementing these policies. These policies greatly affect families 
all across Wyoming and across the country. So even though I strongly 
oppose these policies, I still wanted to meet with the nominee so I 
could explain to her how this administration's policies are hurting 
real people in my home State and across the country.
  I believed if we had a face-to-face meeting I might be able to 
convince her to alter or alleviate the worst impact of the policies 
pursued by this administration through the EPA. In that personal 
meeting with me, the nominee was very sympathetic with the concerns I 
and others had expressed regarding the impact of EPA regulations on 
jobs. She also expressed in many instances that she would look for 
flexibility, but she said she was unfortunately bound by agency 
processes and the law.
  Well, if she is concerned with the impact EPA regulations are having 
on jobs and communities, I believe she should have sought the 
flexibility she needed from Congress to help save these communities and 
these jobs. In a followup to that meeting, I asked in writing: What 
specific legislative changes would you recommend to provide the 
flexibility to protect workers, to protect families, to protect 
communities from job losses that might occur as a result of EPA 
regulations?
  What she stated was ``very sensitive to the state of the economy and 
to the impacts of EPA regulations on jobs.'' And then, ``If confirmed, 
I would continue to work hard to seek opportunities to find more cost-
effective approaches to protecting human health and the environment.'' 
This administration has pummeled coal country, powerplants, 
manufacturing, and small businesses for 4 years, pursuing their 
preferred version of a clean energy future. Since 2009, unemployment 
has remained stagnant. Nearly 10 percent of our coal energy capacity is 
gone. Not once has Ms. McCarthy approached Congress for flexibility in 
implementing her own rules. I see no reason why that would happen in 
the future.
  I would like to commend EPW ranking member Senator Vitter for leading 
an effort to secure information from the nominee. I signed a letter, 
along with Senator Vitter and other members of the EPW Committee, 
seeking access to the scientific data and the reasoning behind the 
justification for expensive new rules and regulations that hurt the 
economy, that cost jobs, seeking true whole economy modeling on EPA's 
Clean Air Act regulations, so we can understand the true cost of these 
rules.
  I was also seeking an assurance that Gina McCarthy and this 
administration honor its commitment to transparency and stop using 
delay tactics to keep the true cost of these regulations from the 
American people. Senator Vitter was able to get some information on 
many of our requests. It was not easy and the nominee was not entirely 
forthcoming. In fact, she has not complied with many of the document 
requests we have made. I can assure the administration that none of us 
who signed that letter making these requests plan on giving up on 
securing basic information that should be readily available to the 
public.
  Gina McCarthy is the wrong candidate to head the Environmental 
Protection Agency. America deserves better. I would ask that my 
colleagues oppose the nomination not on the content of this 
administration's policies but on the actions of this specific nominee 
with regard to accountability, competence, and transparency. I believe 
this nominee gets a failing grade on all three counts.

                          ____________________