[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 8]
[Senate]
[Pages 11687-11699]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




NOMINATION OF REGINA McCARTHY TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask that the Senate resume 
consideration of Calendar No. 98, the nomination of Regina McCarthy to 
be Administrator of the EPA.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Regina McCarthy, of 
Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2:30 
p.m. will be equally divided in the usual form prior to a cloture vote 
on the McCarthy nomination.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, as chairman of the EPW Committee, this 
is a day I have longed for for a long time. This has been the longest 
time the EPA has been without an Administrator in all of history. We 
could not have a more qualified nominee. We could not have a more 
bipartisan nominee.
  The bottom line is Gina McCarthy has worked for five Republican 
Governors. She is a beloved individual. I wish to thank so many outside 
of this body who have weighed in on her behalf, including Christine 
Todd Whitman, the former Republican Administrator of the EPA, and Gov. 
Jodi Rell. It has meant a lot to Gina McCarthy. It has meant a lot to 
us who know that the EPA deserves a leader, and this woman Gina 
McCarthy deserves a promotion.
  I will be back on the floor in about an hour or so just to make some 
more brief comments. But I wish to thank my colleagues from both sides 
of the aisle. We did avert a tough challenge for both parties. We 
averted that. I am very happy we did. One of the benefits of that 
agreement is we are having votes on people as qualified as Gina 
McCarthy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after my 
remarks, Senator Reed be recognized for up to 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam President, I would like to talk about the 
nomination of Gina McCarthy to serve as Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I had the pleasure of meeting with her 
earlier in the confirmation process and talking with her at length 
about many important issues. She is experienced. I believe she is a 
good person. She has given her assurance that EPA would become more 
responsive--at least my interpretation of her response would be that--
and her management has been encouraging.
  However, the Environmental Protection Agency appointment is no small 
matter. The job of EPA Administrator has the potential to impact the 
life of every American in both positive and negative ways. For example, 
in the 1970s, Congress passed the Clean Air Act. It focused on 
pollutants. We were talking about NOX and SOX, 
sulphur oxide, nitrogen oxide, particulates, things that adversely 
affect the health of Americans.
  At that point in time, we had no dream in our mind of a problem--
global warming--that might arise and become a big issue in the future, 
nor did Congress have any inclination that carbon dioxide, plant food, 
that product in the atmosphere that plants take in and

[[Page 11688]]

breathe out oxygen--we breathe in oxygen and out CO2--would 
be declared a pollutant.
  By a 5-to-4 decision, the Supreme Court seemed to declare that, 
although it was not absolutely mandatory, EPA could regulate 
CO2 under the Clean Air Act. EPA has seized that authority. 
They say that, for example, CO2 is a pollutant. Congress has 
never voted to declare CO2 a pollutant. I believe it is a 
stretch and an abuse of the Supreme Court's authority to interpret the 
law we passed in the 1970s as including that.
  If CO2 is a pollutant, as the EPA now assumes and asserts 
it is, every backyard barbecue, every lawnmower as well as every 
factory and plant in America is subject to their control because they 
are required to limit and control pollutants. This is how things happen 
in America.
  So we have an unelected bureaucracy, the Environmental Protection 
Agency, virtually unaccountable to the public, often refusing 
steadfastly to produce reasonable answers to inquiries put to them by 
the Congress. They dictate matters that impact every person in America. 
It is an awesome power. It is something too little discussed in 
America.
  I am going to talk about another subject briefly. I understand Ms. 
McCarthy and her experience. She is going to be elevated now from EPA's 
Air Office, where they have been hammering coal, hammering natural gas, 
and other fuels, carbon fuels, in their regulations to a degree that it 
is driving up the cost for every American to obtain energy, their 
electricity, their automobiles, and the heating in their homes.
  I wish to focus for a few minutes on a central problem at the EPA: 
its disregard for Congress, the law as written, and the use of unlawful 
agency guidance.
  Agency guidance. These are documents they issue to effectively 
rewrite the law in a way that favors the administration's policies and 
political agenda. That is what we are seeing too much of. People say: 
Oh, they just do not like the EPA. All of these complaints from farmers 
and businesses, it is all just overreaction. Those are guys who want to 
pollute the atmosphere and the farmlands and do all of these things. 
They are not reasonable people.
  Most Americans are not dealing face-to-face with the guidance, the 
regulations of the EPA officials who attempt to dictate so much of what 
they do. There is perhaps no better illustration of the dynamic than in 
the context of the administration's effort to grasp control over every 
ditch, stream and creek and pond in the country.
  We actually had a vote on this issue in May during the debate on the 
Water Resources Development Act. I joined with my colleague Senator 
Barrasso in introducing an amendment, the Barrasso-Sessions amendment 
No. 868 to the Water Resources Development Act. A clear majority of the 
Senate, 52 Members, voted for our amendment that would stop EPA from 
implementing an agency guidance document that would vastly expand the 
Agency's jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act.
  So they issue a guidance, direct it to all of their subordinates, and 
tell them how the law is to be enforced. So actually it becomes a new 
law; it becomes the effect of an actual statute. First, the problem 
with what they have been doing is it is contrary to the plain reading 
of the statute, the Clean Water Act.
  This law, enacted in 1972, requires a Federal permit for activities 
impacting navigable waters--navigable waters. That is what is in the 
statute, which Congress has defined as waters of the United States. 
EPA's guidance document broadly interprets this term--broadly 
interprets it and would give Agency employees throughout the country 
the authority to make case-by-case determinations with virtually no 
jurisdictional limits whatsoever.
  I recently asked Ms. McCarthy about this issue. She did not detail 
her views. She would not answer specific questions.
  The Supreme Court has ruled several times on the meaning of this 
jurisdictional term, most recently in its 2006 decision, just a few 
years ago, Rapanos v. United States. That 4-1-4 decision--which, I 
think the Chair did not often see in her State when she was attorney 
general, not often did I see that, a 4-1-4 decision. The Supreme Court 
held that the Army Corps of Engineers overreached by asserting 
jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act over nonnavigable wetlands in 
that case.
  On behalf of the four-member plurality comprised of Justices Roberts, 
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, Justice Scalia wrote that ``waters of the 
United States'' include nonnavigable wetlands only if there is an 
``adjacent channel [that] contains a . . . relatively permanent body of 
water connected to traditional interstate navigable waters.'' That is 
stretching it pretty far, is it not?
  So at least there is a stream that is supposed to be connected to 
some navigable water. Further, Justice Scalia concluded ``the wetland 
has a continuous surface connection with that water . . . '' So there 
is at least some continuous connection to the water. It does not just 
dry up for most of the year and only have water in it when it rains 
heavily. The opinion of Justice Scalia is, to me, in line with the 
Clean Water Act's original meaning of the term ``navigable waters.'' 
The key swing vote was provided by Justice Kennedy, who joined Justice 
Alito, making five votes and remanding the Army Corp's decision in that 
case but under a different interpretation of ``waters of the United 
States.''
  With Justice Kennedy's concurrence, five of the nine Justices 
rejected the idea that the EPA and the Army Corps have unlimited 
jurisdiction over anything wet in the United States. As a result, in 
2008, EPA, under the Bush administration, issued a guidance document 
explaining the Agency interpretation of ``waters of the United States'' 
in light of the Supreme Court decision. That document did not seek to 
expand the Agency's decision or change existing regulations.
  Rather, in that guidance document, the Agency adopted a reasonable 
view that recognizes the need for a significant nexus to traditional 
navigable water, so a connection at least to navigable water. We call 
them branches in Alabama. Sometimes they dry up. They are not a 
navigable stream. However, soon after entering office, the Obama 
administration sought to replace that 2008 guidance document, expanding 
their power with a guidance document, even though there had been no 
intervening Supreme Court case. They submitted a guidance document that 
would vastly expand the Agency's assertion of jurisdiction and power.
  A second problem with EPA's approach is that their approach is 
contrary to the principle of cooperative federalism, which was 
foundational to the enactment of the Clean Water Act from the 
beginning. That principle recognizes that there must be a strong 
partnership between the Federal Government and the States if we are to 
address environmental challenges.
  One way the law recognizes this approach is through giving a limited 
role for the Environmental Protection Agency. The States have the 
primary responsibility for protecting water quality, not the EPA. Water 
is primarily to be protected by the States. This was contemplated in 
the Clean Water Act.
  But EPA's guidance document would seek to involve EPA in a wide range 
of permitting actions that should otherwise be left to the States. I 
believe this guidance is based on a false premise that water quality is 
protected only by EPA--only they can be trusted, not the people who 
live in the States where the water is. So, finally, EPA is 
circumventing Congress by using a guidance document to rewrite the law.
  For those reasons, I will be continuing to work on this issue. It is 
very important in our EPW Committee. I would urge the Senate to act to 
stop the power grab by EPA. As I noted, a majority of the Senate has 
voted for that but did not receive the 60 votes required for passage.
  I am disappointed, to date, that Ms. McCarthy has not agreed to push 
back and back down from the aggressive bureaucratic power grab that has 
come to define this administration's use of

[[Page 11689]]

EPA. There are many more problems within the Environmental Protection 
Agency. They are unelected. They have used powers Congress has never 
explicitly given them to regulate virtually every aspect of the 
American economy.
  I hope Ms. McCarthy will do a good job if she is given this position, 
but she serves at the pleasure of the President. She will take her lead 
from him. It is quite clear he has no intention of constricting the 
expansion of EPA power but indeed is behind expanding it to the fullest 
extent he can achieve. That is very troubling.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). The Senator from Rhode Island.


                             Student Loans

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, over the last few weeks many of my 
colleagues have been engaged in a very serious, very deliberate, very 
thoughtful attempt to deal with the issue of student loan interest 
rates, which doubled July 1 for subsidized loans. They have contributed 
significantly in terms of trying to move this issue forward to reach a 
thoughtful and appropriate conclusion.
  From what I have heard, under their approach--the Bipartisan Student 
Loan Certainty Act of 2013--I don't think, despite the good efforts and 
good intentions, that they have reached the objective, which is to make 
college affordable for all of our students and to somehow try to 
prevent this tidal wave of student financial debt, which is in some 
cases overwhelming to so many students and families across the country. 
Instead of emphasizing the students, I think what they have done is 
just tried to shield the government from investing in those students.
  The clear impact of the legislation that is being proposed is that it 
will increase the cost of education for students. We were in a position 
where we legislatively reduced the rate to 3.4 percent. We had an 
extension for 1 year to this July. It doubled to the previous rate in 
existing law of 6.8 percent.
  What this proposal does is to keep the rate relatively low at first--
although it goes up a bit higher than the 3.4 percent--but invariably, 
mathematically, it gets very high. They have placed some caps there--
and that is something for which I salute the authors, their efforts to 
put caps on the different programs--but those caps are very high also.
  The inevitability is that the one sure thing is that over the course 
of the next few years, students will pay more for higher education at a 
time when they can afford it less and less and at a time when we need 
more fully qualified graduates to take the jobs of this new century to 
be competitive internationally.
  I think we have before us, despite all these great efforts, 
legislation that will shift more and more costs to students. Instead of 
preventing the doubling of these rates to 6.8 percent, it would 
gradually raise these rates above 6.8 percent. We might see 1, 2, or 3 
years of rates that are relatively below that number, but inevitably, 
mathematically, those rates will go beyond 6.8 percent, and the caps 
are rather high.
  High school students of today will be paying a lot more for their 
student loans, and their families will be paying a lot more. It will 
add to the debt of these students and their families. It will restrict 
their ability to become not only qualified workers in our economy but 
also the people who drive the economy, young people who buy homes, buy 
automobiles, and who are able, because of their skills, to earn enough 
to contribute not just to the productivity of the country but their own 
ability to make purchases and keep that engine of the economy moving 
forward.
  There is no real guess as to what level it would go up to because now 
we are moving away from fixed rates and moving toward an adjustable-
rate. The rates have been pegged to a 10-year Treasury bill--a rate 
that we know is going up. It has gone up nearly 1 percent since just 
May, and in this environment it is likely to continue to go up. The 
rate students could pay could rise much more quickly than the 
projections even that CBO is suggesting. It could rise because of 
Federal Reserve policy. If they decide to unwind quantitative easing, 
and in such a way that rates shoot up, then those rates could spike 
very dramatically.
  Students and advocates have raised their voices loud and clear urging 
us not to take this kind of action. They have said that no deal is 
better than a bad deal. The people we are trying to help are actually 
saying: No, that is not the kind of help we need.
  With deep regret, I believe this is not the right approach going 
forward. What the students and advocates have asked us to do is to keep 
it at 3.4 percent. I have proposed legislation to do that for a year so 
that we could work on some of the fundamental issues that are driving 
costs, such as the incentives and disincentives in colleges for 
tuition; the issue of--which is separate but very important--how we not 
only provide reasonable interest rates but how we refinance all those 
students who are overwhelmed by debt, how they take advantage of the 
historically low rates of today. All of those difficult issues are 
being put off. I think they should be engaged, and I think we need the 
time to engage on those issues.
  Unlike the approach of at least another year of 3.4 percent, the 
proposal before us would lock in about $184 billion in student loan 
revenue. That is in the current CBO baseline. Then there is an 
additional $715 million that this proposal would generate. All of that 
is coming out of the pockets of students and families.
  Paying for college is tough. This legislation, unfortunately, could 
make it tougher because it would put in a permanent structure for 
setting student loan interest rates that could quickly result in 
students and parents paying more for student loans. This is not a 
temporary fix to get us to a better place in terms of incentives for 
tuition, in terms of refinancing, in terms of letting students more 
actively and more affordably pursue college education; this is the long 
term.
  It is simple math. In a zero budget environment--and that is one of 
the principles incorporated in this legislation--reducing what students 
pay today means that students will have to pay more tomorrow. If we are 
assuming a 6.8-percent fixed rate over 10 years and we lower that rate, 
as this legislation does, then just do the math--it is going to have to 
be higher to keep it zero or neutral with respect to the budget, and 
that is what is going to happen. So we are going to have some relief 
today, but it will be followed inevitably by students who will pay more 
and individually have a much larger burden to bear.
  I think we are in the position of taking steps that are going to make 
college more expensive at a time when we have to make it more 
affordable not only for individual families and students but for the 
future and success of our economy.
  We are also departing from our past experience with market-based 
interest rates in the Federal student loan programs. This proposal also 
locks in historically high surcharges on top of basing the loans on a 
higher cost instrument. Previously we were using the 91-day T-bill, and 
because it was a short-term note, the interest rates were lower 
relative to the 10-year note. Now we are using a much higher baseline, 
and then we are adding historically higher premiums to that baseline 
for graduate students and parents. So the legislation builds in 
additional costs that we haven't used even when we had rates that were 
based on market conditions.
  Under the market-based rates that were in effect from 1998 to 2006, 
students benefited from historically low interest rates. These rates 
were indexed, as I said, at the lower 91-day Treasury bill rate rather 
than the 10-year Treasury bill rate. As I mentioned before, we already 
know this 10-year Treasury bill rate is moving up.
  We are making these changes from the perspective of interest rates at 
exactly the wrong time--at the bottom of the interest rate curve as it 
starts its climb up. That argues, to me--and, frankly, I think most 
people, if they were going to make a choice on a loan today, would try 
to pick a fixed rate, even if it was a little higher than the

[[Page 11690]]

introductory rate on a variable loan, because of the experience of the 
last several years and because of what they are seeing all around 
them--rising interest rates over time.
  This year, borrowers who are repaying these loans--I am talking about 
the loans that were made in that period of time, 1998 through 2006--
have an interest rate of 2.35 percent, and over the last 5 years their 
rate averaged 2.41 percent. They have benefited from the declining 
rate. They have benefited from the huge expansion of Federal Reserve 
quantitative easing. They have benefited from an economy that slowed 
down, ironically, so that interest rates were falling. Now we are on 
the other side of that curve, and students won't benefit from the 
market rates. They will actually see higher rates as we go forward.
  We offered these rates in the context of the old program where we had 
to also subsidize banks. Today, I would think, with the banks out of 
the picture and with the government, through direct lending, doing the 
lending, we should be able to find a solution where we can actually 
lock in much lower rates for students. This is the kind of solution 
that will take time--the time, I believe, that we could have spent and 
should spend by extending the 3.4 percent rate another year and looking 
creatively and thoughtfully at a whole spectrum of issues but with the 
goal of trying to give students and families the assurances that they 
can afford college and also that college will be affordable in the 
sense that the cost of college will start coming under some type of 
control. That takes a lot of work, and we are not doing that work 
today. Instead, under this proposal, we are adopting a rate structure 
permanently that, because of where we are in the economy, will 
invariably mean that students will pay more and more each year.
  I have mentioned before that because of the great effort of some of 
my colleagues--Senator Manchin, Senator King, Senator Alexander, 
Senator Burr, Senator Durbin, and Chairman Harkin, I could go on and 
on--there have been some improvements made in the initial version of 
this legislation, particularly caps on individual loan programs. Those 
caps are very high. Under the new proposal, the cap for the 
undergraduate loans is 8.25 percent, and then there are caps that go 
all the way up to 10.5 percent. Again, let's step back here. We are 
putting a cap at those levels because there is a reasonable expectation 
that we will reach those levels. As a result, we are going from the 
current law, which is 6.8 percent, to as high as--in some cases for 
parent loans--10.5 percent. This is a huge swing not in favor of the 
students but to their disadvantage.
  This is why I am working on an amendment, which I hope to offer, that 
would put the cap at 6.8 percent for all Stafford loans and at 7.9 
percent for the parent PLUS loan.
  Again, if we are looking at a fixed rate of 6.8 percent and we can't 
do better than that 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now, we have to ask ourselves 
whether we really need to make these changes or whether we should make 
these changes.
  If we adopt the amendment I propose, at least we are telling parents 
they won't be worse off than current law and they will be better off--
because of interest rates at the moment--in the next several years. I 
hope we can do that.
  We are looking at Federal student loan debt that is over $1 trillion. 
This can only mathematically increase that debt. We should be investing 
in our students, giving them the benefit of relatively low-cost loans 
so they can go to school, get on with their lives, and get our economy 
moving again.
  This is also an issue that goes to one of the core issues we face as 
a country, and indeed it is a core issue across the globe--the growing 
inequality of income and, in a sense, opportunity in our country and 
countries across the globe.
  In the United States, the great engine for opportunity has always 
been education. If we make it more expensive, then fewer people can 
take advantage of it. If fewer people take advantage of it, the 
inequality will grow because they won't have the chance for the good-
paying jobs. By the way, in a competitive global economy, we could see 
our position slip because we don't have these talented people.
  So this is an issue that strikes not only at the technical aspects of 
a program, this goes to the heart of what it is that gives opportunity 
to America, and I believe it is education. I believe that if we make it 
expensive, fewer opportunities will be available. If we make it 
expensive, we will be less productive and less competitive.
  I believe that despite the efforts of extraordinarily talented and 
dedicated colleagues, we can do better and we should do better. As 
such, I reluctantly oppose the underlying legislation. I would at least 
hope we could cap it if the amendment I offered would be accepted.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I think we are going to have a cloture 
vote in the early afternoon, and I wish to share a few thoughts. The 
nominee, Gina McCarthy, is a fine person.
  I have been on the Environment and Public Works Committee since I 
came to the Senate in 1994. In fact, when the Republicans were in the 
majority, I chaired that committee, and then, as a minority, I was the 
ranking minority member. So I was there when Lisa Jackson was the 
Administrator of the EPA--someone I had a great deal of respect for. In 
fact, some of my Republican friends criticized me. I was the only one 
who really liked her because, in spite of the fact we disagreed with 
each other philosophically, she always answered honestly, even when it 
was uncomfortable for her to do so.
  I remember one time I asked her a question during a hearing that was 
live on TV, as our hearings were at that time. We were talking about 
one of the cap-and-trade bills that had come up. I don't know how many 
we have had--10 or so in the last 12 years. I asked her: If you really 
believe--which I don't--that CO2 is bad, it is a pollutant 
and all that--if we were to pass this cap-and-trade bill, which is 
going to cost in the range of between $300 billion to $400 billion--
with a ``b''--would that reduce worldwide emissions of CO2? 
She said: No, it wouldn't.
  The reason is very obvious. People hide from this. They are not 
honest, as she is. Obviously, if we just do this in the United States, 
where we already have emission controls on a lot of pollutants, but 
they don't do it in China and India, they don't do it in Mexico, then 
it is not going to reduce CO2. In fact, the reverse would be 
true. It would have the effect--if we only had limitations on 
CO2 in this country--of causing an increase in 
CO2 worldwide because our manufacturing base and others 
would go where the energy is and that would be to countries such as 
China where they don't have any controls on anything.
  A lot of people say: Oh, well, they are waiting for us. They are 
going to follow our example. That is garbage. What the Chinese want to 
do, they are waiting, anticipating, hoping, and praying we will start 
having restrictions on our emissions because they know our 
manufacturing base will end up going over there.
  Here is another thing I can remember also. One of the problems I have 
with the United Nations is they are trying to become independent. It 
just kills them every time they have to say or do something because we 
threaten to withhold our contributions to the United Nations. So they 
have been attempting for a long period of time to get themselves in a 
position where they are self-supporting and they do not have to be 
answerable to anyone or accountable to anyone. Consequently, they are 
the ones who started this whole global warming matter.
  If you follow through, going all the way from the Kyoto convention of 
12 years ago and up through all these bills, all these pieces of 
legislation, they are the ones, if that becomes a reality, we will have 
to turn to. All of a sudden they will have a source of income, so they 
will not have to be dependent upon the United States, which pays 25 
percent of their bills, or any of the other countries.

[[Page 11691]]

  One of the things the United Nations does and has been doing for 10 
years or so--I guess longer than that--is they have the biggest party 
of the year in the most exotic places in the world they can find to 
have these parties, and they invite all the countries--192 countries--
to come to it. When they have these big conventions, the only price of 
entering is to agree with the concept of global warming and that you 
are going to start restricting your CO2. Obviously, these 
countries are not going to do it, but it is worth lying to be able to 
go to the party.
  The biggest one of those parties was held in Copenhagen in 2009. At 
that time, Lisa Jackson was the Administrator at the EPA. Quite 
frankly, I don't wish to be disrespectful, but all those who attended 
from the United States--and I am talking about John Kerry, the 
President, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, and all of them--had said: Yes, 
the United States of America is going to pass cap and trade. We will be 
right there with you.
  That wasn't true and they knew it wasn't true. So I decided to go 
there. In fact, I went all the way there, stayed 3 hours, and came all 
the way back, as the one-man truth squad.
  I can recall right before I left to go to Copenhagen we had a hearing 
and Lisa Jackson was a witness at the hearing, and I said to her: It is 
my feeling, as I leave to go to Copenhagen as the one-man truth squad, 
to let them know we are not going to pass anything over here, and since 
you know we can't get this done legislatively, that you are going to 
have an endangerment finding in the United States and then use that as 
an excuse to pass with regulation what you couldn't do with 
legislation. She kind of smiled. I could tell that was going to happen. 
I said: When this happens--when I leave town and you come out with an 
endangerment finding--it has to be based on science. So what science 
will you use?
  She said: The IPCC. The IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is 
the United Nations. They were formed by the United Nations. They were 
formed and stacked with scientists who were all preprogrammed to 
believe all this garbage, and they did.
  Then something happened, and it couldn't have happened at a better 
time because it wasn't but a few days after Lisa Jackson had said we 
were going to be depending upon the IPCC. Here we were, preparing to 
pass the largest tax increase in the history of America, and doing it 
through regulations, which was the same thing as cap and trade, only 
more expensive, and it was going to be based on science and that 
science was the IPCC. It wasn't but hours after that when climategate 
came in--and all of a sudden the things we had been saying for 10 years 
on the floor in talking about the scientists who had been shut out of 
the process at the United Nations--and they were totally discredited. 
They had cooked their science, cooked the numbers, and climategate was 
the result. It was so bad the major newspapers in London characterized 
it as the greatest single scientific scandal in the history of the 
world. Now, that is a big deal.
  Anyway, that went on, and then they started working on doing this 
through regulation since they couldn't get it done through legislation. 
The reason I bring that up is because during that timeframe, while Lisa 
Jackson was the Administrator of the EPA, Gina McCarthy, the one who is 
coming up for a cloture vote in maybe an hour or so, was the Assistant 
Administrator of the EPA in charge of air issues. What went on during 
that time were these huge punitive things.
  We can forget about the greenhouse gases or the cap and trade they 
are going to be coming up with, even though that is the largest of all 
of them, they passed Utility MACT. MACT means maximum achievable 
control technology. What Utility MACT does is ask the question: What 
technology is out there to restrict and to reduce emissions? What 
technology? So what they have done in Utility MACT is put a restriction 
on emissions--and this was impossible technologically to achieve, but 
the whole idea was to run coal out of business. Quite frankly, they 
were able to get it through.
  I remember at that time there was this little provision that isn't 
very often successfully used, but it is called the CRA--the 
Congressional Review Act. That provision says if an unelected 
bureaucracy that is not accountable to anyone comes out with 
regulations that are so onerous, so bad that it is going to be very 
costly and is something that doesn't make any sense, then we in the 
Senate and House can do a CRA--a Congressional Review Act. We have to 
get 30 cosponsors--30--and then we have to get a majority--51 in the 
case of the Senate--to pass it. I did a Congressional Review Act on the 
Utility MACT, which was to cost us $100 billion and 1.65 million jobs. 
These numbers, by the way, are not denied by anyone, to my knowledge.
  So there we were, in a position to get this through. I got my 30 
cosponsors and we came within 2 votes of getting it done. So the CRA is 
something where it does inject something to reflect the will of the 
people, because we are elected by the people, and we came very close to 
doing it. Nonetheless, that is now a law, and there are millions of 
people out there--right now in excess of 1 million people--who have 
already lost their jobs because of that.
  Boiler MACT is the same thing--maximum achievable control 
technology--for a boiler. Every manufacturer has a boiler. So this 
would do the same thing to manufacturers as Utility MACT did to coal. 
That involved $63.3 billion and 800,000 jobs lost.
  The next was cement MACT. That would have been--here they are on the 
chart. Cement MACT is one that would cost $3.5 billion and 80,000 jobs. 
That is already implemented.
  If ozone, the next one, should come up, that would perhaps be even 
more serious than the top 3--second only to greenhouse gases--and that 
would mean 2,800 counties in the United States would be out of 
attainment. In my State of Oklahoma, we have 77 counties. All 77 
counties would be out of attainment.
  I can remember when I was mayor of Tulsa, Tulsa County was out of 
attainment. That meant we couldn't recruit jobs, we couldn't start new 
industries, and we had to fire a lot of people who were working there 
because we were out of attainment in ozone emissions.
  That had been delayed until after the election. Now that the election 
is over, they can go ahead with some of these they hadn't done before.
  Hydraulic fracturing. I have talked from this podium I don't know how 
many times about the President's war on fossil fuels. It is critical. 
Here we are in a position in the United States where we can be totally 
independent of any country--the Middle East or anybody else--if we only 
will use our own resources, but we don't do that. We are in a position 
right now where we have, in the last 4 years, increased our production 
by 40 percent because of getting into the shale areas and the tight 
formations and using hydraulic fracturing to extract the oil and gas. 
But that is all on either State or on private land. On Federal land, 
because the Obama administration will not let us drill on Federal land, 
it has actually decreased by 7 percent. Is that possible, to increase 
all of our production by 40 percent except that part which is on 
Federal lands? Yes. In fact, that is exactly what has happened.
  When they talk about hydraulic fracturing, this is something that has 
been regulated by the States, and there is a reason for that, by the 
way. The reason is my State of Oklahoma has different formations than 
Alaska, for example, or now with the Marcellus, going through 
Pennsylvania and New York. That is different--different depths. So the 
regulation has been very successful. The first hydraulic fracturing job 
was done in my State of Oklahoma in 1949, and there has never been a 
case of groundwater contamination in over 1 million applications of it.
  Again, this gets back to Lisa Jackson. I asked her that question, 
when I asked: Has there ever been a confirmed case of groundwater 
contamination from hydraulic fracturing? She said: No, there hasn't 
been.
  That is the kind of honesty I like in the answers we get. The only 
reason I

[[Page 11692]]

bring that up is the President is trying to use hydraulic fracturing. 
He will stand, as he did in the joint session, and say: We have an 
abundance of good, clean, cheap natural gas, and that is what we need 
to be turning to, but we have to do something about hydraulic 
fracturing. We can't get to the natural gases necessary without using 
this technique called hydraulic fracturing. So they are trying to kill 
it that way.
  I could go on and on--this is on this chart behind me--but the only 
reason I bring this up is we do have a vote coming up on a very fine 
lady, Gina McCarthy. But we have to keep in mind when all these air 
regulations were conceived, they were done when she was the Assistant 
Administrator of the EPA for air. These are all air regulations. So she 
is certainly more than just partially responsible for that. She was the 
engineer of all these regulations.
  If we add up all of these regulations, the total figure we had--do we 
have it on the chart? It was the NAM that did a study that no one has 
challenged, where they say we now, just because of these air 
regulations--what we have done already exclusive of cap and trade--have 
lost $630 billion from our GDP and 9 million jobs have been lost.
  That is how critical this is to our economy. That is how expensive it 
is. All these things translate into taxes. I do a calculation every 
year. In my State of Oklahoma, the $300 billion to $400 billion would 
cost the average taxpayer in Oklahoma $3,000. Yet, by their own 
admission, the greenhouse gas cap-and-trading CO2 would not 
reduce CO2 emissions at all. I am sure a lot of people have 
been notified by their manufacturers and businesses back home: We can't 
allow the increase of cost of all these regulations, so we want you to 
oppose it.
  Two votes are going to take place today. The first is the cloture 
vote. It takes 60 to pass a cloture vote. The next vote, if they should 
be successful to have cloture, will be the vote to put her into office. 
That would be only 51 votes.
  I hate to say this about my fellow Senators, but I know there are 
going to be some Senators out there who say, I will fool the people 
back home; I will vote against her confirmation, but I will go ahead 
and vote for cloture, because they have to have my vote to reach 60. So 
they vote for cloture, and then, to make the people at home think they 
are against all these regulations, they will vote against her. I am 
predicting that is going to happen. We will know in a couple of hours.
  The second vote is not important. The only important vote is the 
cloture vote. The cloture vote would be the first one that comes at 
2:30 today. So you are going to see a lot of people voting for cloture 
and then end up voting against her. That is what there is to look for.
  This will be the last time I say this; that is if you really want to 
do something about the regulations and you feel she has demonstrated 
she will not be helpful in this respect, the one important vote is 
going to be the cloture vote that takes place at 2:30 this afternoon.
  I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, we are about to vote on a new Administrator 
for the Environmental Protection Agency. I have a real problem with the 
individual who has been nominated to direct that Agency. I will cast my 
vote shortly, but I want to take the opportunity here to talk about the 
EPA, an Agency that I think has exceeded the authority given to it by 
this body, it has overstepped its role and its bounds, and has had an 
enormous negative impact on my State and on our country.
  The overreach, the regulation after regulation and rule after rule 
that has come out of EPA may have achieved some benefit in some places, 
but these benefits have come nowhere close to exceeding their costs.
  The Competitive Enterprise Institute totals EPA regulations at 
roughly $350 billion a year, making it the single most expensive 
rulemaking agency in government. This is particularly relevant now, 
because a vote on the new Administrator is before us and I think it is 
important that we focus on what the EPA's impact has been over the last 
4 or 5 years and what the EPA rules and regulations have imposed upon 
our economy.
  Whether it is the war on fossil fuels, whether it is the war on the 
production of energy, or any of a number of other issues that have been 
brought forward through their rules and regulations, the EPA has had a 
serious negative impact on our ability to be an energy-secure, energy-
efficient, and low-cost Nation.
  Our country has taken great strides to improve air quality over the 
years. To date, the utility industry has spent over $100 billion in 
capital investment for air pollution controls which have resulted in 
significant declines in emissions. By singling out these providers and 
effectively prohibiting coal-fired electricity generation, the 
administration is putting our economic well-being, grid reliability, 
and American jobs at risk.
  Air quality and energy production don't have to be at war with each 
other. They don't need to be incompatible. We can, and must, achieve 
both. But we also must have some flexibility and transparency from this 
administration and its rulemaking agencies if we are going to 
accomplish that goal.
  I applaud my colleague from Louisiana, Senator Vitter, for his 
persistence in seeking responses from the EPA. So often this Agency 
researches benefits and secondary benefits but does not reveal a 
detailed economic analysis of the true costs associated with their 
rules. Senator Vitter's work in getting a commitment from the Agency to 
convene independent economic experts to examine the Agency's economic 
model is something that I believe needs to be done.
  I think the administration should welcome this, because we are trying 
to find that balance between putting people back to work, getting our 
economy moving again, and imposing, yes, necessary health and safety 
regulations but not one at the cost of the other. These can be 
compatible.
  Senator Manchin and I, on a bipartisan basis, have sought not to give 
the electricity coal-fired plants across our country--and many of which 
are in our respective States--an excuse not to comply with the clean 
air laws, but simply to extend the time in which they are mandated to 
bring new pollution control measures onboard. Some of these industries 
are halfway through the production process of doing this. They have 
made the commitment. All we asked for was a temporary waiver--nothing 
to do with achieving the goal, but a temporary waiver to give them a 
little more extra time to comply and finish what they were doing.
  Some of these coal plants were in the middle of installing extremely 
expensive air pollution control measures. Yet the hard and fast rule 
imposed upon them by the EPA--with no ability to give them a waiver for 
demonstrated good-faith effort to comply--and because they couldn't get 
all the construction and implementation made by a certain date, they 
now have to switch to another source of fuel or shut down. Many had to 
shut down, at significant economic impact not just to my State but to 
many States, particularly those States that have heavy manufacturing 
that needs a lot of electricity.
  So while I don't want to go into great detail in terms of which 
specific regulations and rules ought to be looked at and given some 
flexibility, I want to make the larger point that if we are sincere 
about dealing with issues and policies that will allow us to achieve 
economic growth and put more people back to work, we need to have 
responsible rules and regulations--not this onslaught of rules and 
regulations that continues to come out of EPA, some of which seem 
driven by ideology rather than by effective cost-benefit analysis--with 
the understanding that we

[[Page 11693]]

are in a precarious economic time. We have a lot of people out of work, 
and that delay or an advancement of time in which to achieve certain 
regulations and a sincere evaluation on the basis of what is the real 
cost-benefit of going forward with this ought to be imposed.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Pancreatic Cancer

  Mr. TESTER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the need to 
invest in research to fight pancreatic cancer.
  Just six percent of Americans diagnosed with pancreatic cancer live 
more than 5 years--6 percent.
  Sixty-five percent of folks with colon cancer survive that long; 90 
percent live 5 years with breast cancer and nearly every man diagnosed 
with prostate cancer is still living after half a decade.
  Why is pancreatic cancer a different story? It is because we do not 
have a reliable way to detect this deadly disease in its earliest 
stages.
  As a result, nearly 40,000 Americans will die from pancreatic cancer 
in 2013. But despite being a leading cause of cancer death, pancreatic 
cancer receives far less support--and far fewer research dollars--than 
other forms of cancer.
  This must change because support for cancer research saves lives.
  Supporting pancreatic cancer research will lead to breakthroughs in 
treatment. It will lead to needed advances in early detection. And it 
will show the American people that we are serious about saving the 
lives of their closest family and friends.
  For Leigh Enselman, it will make it clear that we are standing with 
her and her mother.
  Leigh lives in Bozeman, MT while her mother, who suffers with 
pancreatic cancer, lives in Seattle.
  Leigh works hard to support her mom during chemotherapy and radiation 
treatments. She also volunteers her time to support pancreatic cancer 
patients and raise awareness about the disease.
  But Leigh worries what is in store for her and her mom. She prays 
every day that her mom will be among the 6 percent of pancreatic cancer 
patients who survive.
  Myra and Ed Pottratz from Great Falls, MT know what Leigh and her mom 
are going through. Together, they are fighting Ed's cancer. Ed recently 
had surgery, but the tumor spread to his liver. He now faces painful 
chemotherapy treatments, something far too many cancer patients 
experience.
  Supporting pancreatic cancer research will also honor the life of 
Lanny Duffy of Darby, MT.
  Lanny and his wife Deborah were not born and raised in Montana. They 
came west from Chicago so in retirement Lanny could be closer to his 
beloved fly fishing. But Lanny was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, 
and he only got to enjoy the State he loved for a year before the 
disease took his life.
  Congress took a big step forward last year to support folks such as 
Leigh, Ed and Lanny. We passed the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act. 
This bill--supported by a bipartisan majority--increased research into 
pancreatic cancer. It gave the National Cancer Institute the tools it 
needs to tackle this lethal disease.
  But the sequester is taking back our promise. The sequester cut 
funding to the National Institutes of Health--which does most of our 
country's research into this form of cancer--by 5 percent.
  That 5 percent cut eliminated 250 million dollars-worth of funding 
for cancer research.
  Talk about sending mixed messages. One moment, we are telling Leigh 
and her mom that we're fighting cancer with them. The next moment, we 
are telling them they are on their own.
  Just last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee restored the 
funding that was cut by sequestration so NIH could beat pancreatic 
cancer. This is my first year as a member of the subcommittee that 
funds the NIH. It has been an honor to work with Chairman Harkin to 
ensure that the NIH and medical research all over the country is well 
funded by this bill.
  But this measure--which I wholeheartedly support--has a long way to 
go before becoming law.
  We need to rein in our spending. We need to get our budget in order. 
But we cannot hurt our neighbors in the process. We owe that to people 
like Leigh, and Ed and Deborah. For their sake, we need to find a 
responsible solution to our budget problems.
  Folks around the country are skeptical right now in Congress' ability 
to make smart, responsible decisions.
  And cutting funding to fight deadly diseases like pancreatic cancer 
only adds to their frustration. That is because they know it will slow 
down the progress we have made toward detecting pancreatic cancer early 
on and saving lives.
  This disease touches me and my office personally. Two members of my 
office have lost relatives to pancreatic cancer. Chances are I am not 
alone in this regard. Chances are each of my Senate colleagues knows a 
Leigh, an Ed, or a Deborah.
  In support of those we know, those we've met, and those we love, I 
urge my colleagues to support increased research into pancreatic 
cancer, to support the Appropriations Committee's recent NIH budget 
plan, and to stand for smart and responsible measures to balance our 
budget.


                        Government Surveillance

  I also want to talk about the need to protect our civil liberties and 
our Constitutional rights. When I joined the Senate in 2007, I was a 
bit of an outlier. But I am not referring to my status as the only 
working farmer in the Senate or to my haircut.
  I am referring to my opposition to the Patriot Act.
  Montanans elected me to the U.S. Senate after I made it clear that I 
didn't just want to fix the Patriot Act, I wanted to repeal it. I still 
do. But recent events have focused many of us in the Senate on my 
concerns with the Patriot Act and some parts of the Foreign 
Intelligence Surveillance Act or FISA.
  A recent national survey reveals Americans are shifting in favor of 
reining in government surveillance programs. In fact, since 2010, 
nearly twice as many Americans say government spying is going too far 
and restricting our civil liberties.
  Folks like me are now mainstream. Support for repeal--or at least 
changes--to the Patriot Act is up among both Democrats and Republicans.
  As a result, more Members of Congress are expressing their concerns 
about the extent of the government's spying programs, and the Nation is 
finally talking about how to fundamentally balance our civil liberties 
with our national security.
  Of course, the recent NSA scandal is at the heart of Washington's 
newfound interest in standing up for our civil liberties. And lawmakers 
should be outraged, because the secret collection of our phone and 
internet records is a perfect example for what happens when government 
ignores our Constitutional rights. We didn't need Edward Snowden to 
tell us the Federal Government is circumventing our Constitutional 
rights.
  Whatever one thinks of Edward Snowden--and I think what he did was 
wrong and hurt our country--the reality is that he was not blowing the 
whistle on illegal activities. He disclosed information about programs 
that were perfectly legal.
  And that is the problem. The NSA is using bad laws to undertake 
massive data collection on American citizens.
  Just over 2 years ago--here on the Senate floor--I said the Patriot 
Act is compromising the very liberties and rights that make our Nation 
great and respected around the world.
  At that time I said the Patriot Act gives our government full 
authority to

[[Page 11694]]

dig through our private records and tap our phones--without even having 
to get a judge's warrant.
  It did not take rocket science to figure it out, it is in the law.
  And now it is time to have a full, open debate about the Patriot Act 
and the FISA amendments.
  The Patriot Act is an invasion of privacy. The FISA Amendments Act is 
no better.
  Both are an affront to our freedoms, and--to me--they raise 
constitutional questions. I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if they 
are unconstitutional. But I can tell you that they do not represent the 
values and the privacy rights of law-abiding Americans.
  That is why I have voted to repeal it. And it is why I voted against 
extending the FISA Act in December.
  But we cannot go back in time. We can only move forward and take 
action now to better balance our civil liberties with our national 
security.
  To get our intelligence policy back on track in a way that is true to 
our values, here is what we need to do:
  First, we have to fix our laws. We need to do more than just put the 
government's spying programs under the microscope and we need to rein 
them in.
  That is why I am also supporting a bill that makes it harder for the 
government to obtain phone call records and forces Federal officials to 
prove that sought-after records can be linked to a foreign terrorist or 
group.
  The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee wrote this bill. I 
certainly would not call the senior Senator from Vermont an outlier.
  We must have increased transparency and accountability about how 
these programs are being implemented and why they are being run the way 
they are.
  That is why I joined with one-quarter of the Senate to call on the 
Director of National Intelligence to justify the collection of 
Americans' phone and personal information. It has been 3 weeks, and we 
have not gotten a response yet.
  We need answers, and they need to be truthful.
  That is also why a bipartisan group of Senators has once again 
introduced legislation to declassify important Foreign Intelligence 
Surveillance Court opinions.
  Americans deserve to know what legal arguments the government is 
using to spy on them, and this bill will do just that.
  We need a functioning Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 
The Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is charged with making sure 
national security measures do not violate the rights of law-abiding 
Americans. For years, seats on the panel sat empty.
  But soon after I called on the panel to investigate the NSA, board 
members found themselves at the White House meeting with the President.
  That is a good thing. And they need to continue to have the access 
and the ear of the President to do their job effectively on behalf of 
the American people.
  It is a new day. Times are changing. The American people are taking a 
hard look at what Federal officials are doing in the name of national 
security, and what it means for them and their families. The question 
is whether this body will live up to the American people's new 
expectations.
  After the attacks of September 11, Congress approved the PATRIOT Act 
and our Nation went to war. We stamped out Al Qaeda cells and put 
terror on its heels around the world.
  Then and now, our military and intelligence communities performed 
bravely. They are better trained, stronger, smarter, and more effective 
than any other force on the planet. I thank them for their service. 
From top to bottom, I thank each and every one of them for doing their 
difficult jobs each and every day.
  Congress did not give our intelligence community a blank check to 
walk all over the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans and 
Montanans. I am confident American citizens can be kept safe without 
snooping around in our private lives.
  Americans and Montanans are concerned about the government right now. 
They have seen the recent news about the government missteps, overreach 
and scandals and wonder where Washington's priorities lie. They wonder 
whether anyone is looking down the road to see where this country is 
going.
  Every measure I have outlined today will help restore the balance 
between national security and privacy, and every one of them has strong 
bipartisan support.
  I will keep working with Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and 
anyone else to defend our civil liberties and for the ideals of our 
Founding Fathers. Freedom, privacy, and a government controlled by the 
people are the principles on which our forefathers founded our Nation, 
and they are the principles that led Montanans to send me to Washington 
and represent them.
  Our constitutional rights are what make us the greatest country in 
the world, and we cannot let them be taken away one new law at a time.


                           Pancreatic Cancer

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, today I wish to remember all those we 
have lost in Connecticut and throughout the Nation due to pancreatic 
cancer and other types of recalcitrant cancers, and to raise awareness 
of the importance of continued efforts to bring about more effective 
treatments and widespread education to fight this pernicious disease.
  Lisa Hayes was a journalist from Connecticut. She worked for an 
international nonprofit organization that worked to get medications and 
health care to developing countries. She was the editor for Doctors 
without Borders, and a fearless advocate for the underdog. Lisa was 45 
when she was diagnosed with stage IV pancreatic cancer. Her symptoms 
were dry skin and fatigue. Being a working mother of two and it being 
winter, Lisa thought nothing of it. When she was diagnosed, she was 
told ``There is no hope. Go home and kiss your kids good-bye.'' Lisa 
tried an oral chemotherapy regime, but it was unsuccessful. She lived 
for 4 months afterwards, then died four days shy of her 46th birthday, 
leaving behind a husband and two children under the age of 12.
  While overall cancer incidence and death rates are declining, that is 
far from the case for pancreatic cancer. Pancreatic cancer is the 
deadliest of all major forms of cancer, having the lowest 5-year 
survival rate of only 6 percent. It will strike more than 45,000 
Americans this year--73 percent of whom will die within a year of their 
diagnosis.
  Recalcitrant cancers, such as those that develop in the pancreas, are 
difficult to detect. By definition, these cancers have low survival 
rates; and, sadly, we have not seen substantial progress in diagnosing 
or treating these diseases. For these reasons, I was proud to cosponsor 
the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act, which was passed and signed into 
law near the end of the 112th Congress. In addition to other 
provisions, this law authorized the National Cancer Institute, NCI, to 
implement a strategic plan to battle pancreatic cancer. This law takes 
further steps to establish a committee to advise the NCI on research 
goals for pancreatic cancer, and also requires the creation of an 
education program to train health care providers, patients, and their 
families on issues specifically related to this devastating disease.
  As required by the Recalcitrant Cancer Research Act, the NCI recently 
released its report on these issues. The report includes four 
recommended research initiatives as identified by a working group of 
leading health experts. I applaud the NCI for taking this important 
step, and I look forward to continuing to support the agency's work in 
this area. Efforts such as these are vital to improving our health, and 
I invite my colleagues to join me in their support.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BLUNT. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page 11695]]


  Mr. BLUNT. Madam President, I rise to discuss my hold on the nominee 
whom we will be voting on this afternoon, Gina McCarthy. Gina McCarthy 
is the President's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. 
There is no doubt that there are lots of things to be concerned about 
with the Environmental Protection Agency.
  There are 12 States that just sued the EPA over the Agency's sue-and-
settle tactics. There are rules and regulations, if they are allowed to 
go forward, that will raise energy prices. There are lots of issues to 
debate, and we will continue to debate those.
  This is about a more targeted area. I have only been in the Senate 
for a couple of years. What is a hold? A hold is put on a nomination 
when there is a problem that needs to be solved or for a problem that 
just can't be solved. Some may object to the nominee or some may object 
to something that has happened that should permanently disqualify that 
particular individual from any job.
  This is a hold on a problem that could be solved. This is one of the 
things that individual Senators still have the ability to do. This is 
not intended to stop a nominee but to at least make it more difficult 
for that nominee to be confirmed. It is one of the things we can do to 
say: Let's do what we can to solve this problem. It has to be 
defensible. In my view, it has to be something a Senator is willing to 
talk about. We did away with the so-called secret holds in the Senate 
in recent years so we know who has the hold. If anyone wants to know, I 
suppose they could almost always find out why they have it.
  In my case, I would like the administration to do something they 
promised to do in February; that is, to reach an agreement on a set of 
facts that relate to a longstanding project in my State of Missouri. 
Let me be clear: I am not asking anybody to spend any money. I am not 
asking anybody to approve a project. This is about a draft statement 
that is out there that the government keeps arguing with itself about.
  There is an old saying that you are entitled to your own opinion, but 
you are not entitled to your own facts. I don't care what opinion any 
of these agencies have. That is outside of this discussion.
  What I care about is agreeing on the facts. There is a project in the 
``bootheel'' of Missouri. Actually, for anyone who has a map of the 
United States, you can get pretty close to where the project is 
located. The bootheel in southeast Missouri is pretty easy to find on 
any map that identifies the States. Anybody can get very close to this 
project. The St. Johns Bayou-New Madrid Floodway Project has been mired 
in bureaucratic infighting and unresolved government disputes for at 
least 30 years.
  In fact, 1954 was when the government said they would take care of 
this levee problem. They said it again in 1986. It is as if every 32 
years we need to renew our commitment to do this job.
  Congress authorized this project. It would add 1,500 feet of levee. 
It would close a gap in the levee system around the river; 1,500 feet 
is not a long space. It can be measured by football fields or however 
else you want to measure it. We are talking about 1,500 feet. We are 
talking about how that would work.
  After years of going back and forth over the first environmental 
impact statement, the Army Corps of Engineers produced a second draft 
of this statement in July of 2011. What do I mean by agreeing to the 
facts? One of the facts in dispute in any levee flood is always 
wetlands. In this case, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said there 
were 500 acres of wetlands. The Environmental Protection Agency said: 
No, there are 118,000 acres of wetlands.
  Obviously, this is a pretty big floodway if 117,500 acres of it could 
be in dispute as to whether it is wetlands, and that is a pretty big 
discrepancy. These are two government agencies. There is only one 
definition for wetland. Is it 500 acres or is it 118,000 acres? I think 
the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had some number somewhere in the 
middle, but that is no way to solve disputes.
  The facts are the facts. What meets the definition? This draft of the 
environmental impact statement--people could comment on this draft if 
it became public. It is not a final statement. I have been asking for a 
draft statement. It has now been out there for 2 years. In March of 
2012, I sent two letters to try to address this problem. One letter 
went to the Fish & Wildlife Service and one was sent to the EPA.
  In June of 2012, the Army Corps withdrew the revised statement due to 
ongoing concerns with these other two agencies.
  In September of 2012, Congresswoman Emerson--who is from that 
congressional district in Missouri--and I sent a letter expressing our 
disappointment about all of this foot dragging.
  In October of that year, we visited the project to try to figure out 
what the problem could be for all the farm families and those who would 
be impacted as well as others who want to be sure they have the right 
kind of flood protection.
  In December of 2012, Missouri colleague Senator McCaskill wrote the 
heads of the EPA and Fish & Wildlife demanding that they reach a 
resolution in 30 days and that they present this new environmental 
impact statement in 60 days. So now there is a Republican Senator and 
Democratic Senator asking the government to quit arguing with itself 
and come up with an agreement on the facts. This is about the facts, 
not about opinions.
  In July of 2013, the Army Corps withdrew its revised draft statement 
once again and the EPA said: We are going to take this all the way to 
the White House for review.
  In February of this year, 2013, Senator McCaskill and I had a meeting 
in her office with representatives of these agencies. During that 
meeting in February, all the agencies agreed to reach an agreement 
surrounding the facts by March 15.
  They came up with this deadline. Senator McCaskill and I didn't ask 
them when or how quickly they could do this. They said: We will get 
this done by March 15.
  Unfortunately, on March 15 they called and said: We couldn't quite 
get it done by March 15. So I said: OK. One way I can have some impact 
is with this nominee for EPA. So the next week, March 18, I placed a 
hold on her nomination.
  Frankly, I thought this would be a couple of weeks. After all, 1 
month earlier they thought they could do this in 2 weeks. Now I am 
saying: OK, let's get this done. They can't just promise Members of the 
Senate that they are going to do something and then decide to ignore 
it. As a result, nothing has happened yet. The March 15 deadline has 
come and gone.
  In May of 2013, I went to the project site again. I met with Gina 
McCarthy that month to express my concerns over this bureaucratic 
infighting. I contacted the White House to attempt to get this 
situation resolved for southeastern Missourians and people in 
neighboring States who benefit from this floodway as well. 
Unfortunately, we are still waiting.
  Ten days ago, the EPA, the Corps, and Fish & Wildlife sent a letter 
on the status. They said there was a common understanding. I wrote back 
and said: What does that mean? Does that mean you don't understand how 
you don't agree with each other? What does it mean? Can we get these 
facts determined?
  So far I have heard nothing. I want to know whether the Natural 
Resource Conservation Service agrees with the new definition. The EPA 
came up with a new definition of farmable wetlands. No one I know has 
heard of this before. It is not defined anywhere in law. It is just at 
the EPA.
  Finally, has there been an agreement with the Corps, EPA or Fish & 
Wildlife on whether proposed mitigation actions are both valid and 
adequate? Of the 471 comments that came out, 115 of them concerned 
mitigation, and most of them came from EPA. I am referring to internal 
comments. We have not gotten to a point where a citizen can say: I like 
this project or I don't like it, and here is what I think is wrong

[[Page 11696]]

with it. I sent a response to the administration on July 9 with more 
questions.
  The most pressing question is: Why can't we manage the government? 
The administration on this issue said: The government is big and 
complicated and we can't expect the President to run everything in the 
administration. Actually, I do expect the President to do that. The 
Constitution expects the President to do that.
  Again, as I conclude, let me just say I will vote to not go forward 
with her nomination, although I may not prevail. This is a reasonable 
question. I am not asking the Federal Government to spend a dime or to 
approve construction; I am just asking them to agree to the facts. One 
wouldn't think that would be hard to do, but in this case it has been 
pretty hard to do.
  The government needs to stop arguing with the government. I am going 
to keep fighting for the people I work for to have a right to know what 
the facts are and what we should be considering as we decide whether we 
should move forward with this project. The Federal Government said, in 
1954 and again in 1986, here is something we are going to do and here 
is the authorization to do it. Let's find out if it really works by 
just putting the facts on record.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I support President Obama's nomination of 
Gina McCarthy to be the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA. The work of the EPA is critical to protecting 
Americans from toxic air emissions, polluted waters, harmful chemicals, 
and contaminated soils. EPA restores habitats enabling flora and fauna 
to flourish, improving drinking water supplies, enhancing our quality 
of life, and providing recreational opportunities. Since the EPA was 
created in 1970, the air we breathe is safer, our waterways are 
cleaner, and hundreds of thousands of contaminated acres have been 
cleaned up.
  This progress needs to continue, and Gina McCarthy would be an 
excellent leader to protect our treasured environment and improve 
public health, while at the same time promoting economic growth. I had 
the pleasure of meeting with Gina McCarthy this April and we had a 
frank discussion about commonsense environmental regulations. For 
example, I support strong ballast water regulations to protect the 
Great Lakes from destructive invasive species, but a patchwork of 
various State regulations would be impossible for shippers to comply 
with and thus we need a single strong federal standard. While Ms. 
McCarthy was not able to comment on this specific matter, she assured 
me that she would move forward with environmental regulations that are 
practical and workable. Her work on other EPA regulations, including 
those addressing toxic air pollutants from power plants and boilers, 
demonstrate that she has a history of doing this, of listening to all 
stakeholders and addressing valid concerns.
  Gina McCarthy has worked at the local, State, and Federal levels on 
environmental issues, as well as with coordinating policies related to 
economic growth, energy, transportation and the environment. She has 
led EPA's air office, overseeing a number of important regulations to 
reduce toxic pollutants in the air we breathe. She is committed to 
serving the public. I support her nomination because we need the type 
of leadership she has already demonstrated: willingness to work on a 
bipartisan basis, commitment to responding to what science tells us, 
and understanding the economic consequences of regulations.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, this is a very important day for the 
American people. We are beginning to give President Obama the team he 
wants to work with. I am not suggesting everyone here likes his 
choices, but he won the Presidency. Every President, whether I agree 
with him or disagree with him, or whether I agree with her or disagree 
with her, or whether it is a Republican or Democrat, every President 
deserves a team in place.
  If I were to ask people how important clean air is to them or how 
important it is that when children breathe the air they don't wind up 
with asthma, I will tell my colleagues that 80 percent of them will say 
it is very important. If I were to ask them how important clean water 
is, the quality of our lakes and streams and oceans, I would say they 
would think it over and they would say it is pretty important. That is 
where we get our fish. That is where we go to recreate. That is a 
legacy we want preserved.
  If I were to say: How about safe drinking water, do you think you 
ought to be nervous when you or your child drinks your water out of the 
tap--and, sadly, fewer and fewer people are drinking water out of the 
tap--I would suggest to my colleagues, knowing what the American people 
know and seeing how smart they are about what bacteria could be in the 
water, I would say they would think it very important--at least 80 
percent.
  If I asked them: How important is it that Superfund sites that had 
dangerous toxins on them be cleaned up? How important is it to clean up 
Superfund sites that are dangerous to the health of our children and 
dangerous to the health of our families? Brownfield sites that are 
dangerous to our families, how important is it that those responsible 
for making that mess clean up their mess so those sites can be restored 
and they can be, in fact, built upon again? I would say vast majorities 
would say it is very important.
  If the Presiding Officer ever goes to visit a school and talks to the 
kids and asks them to raise their hands if they have asthma or someone 
they know has asthma, I guarantee too many kids will raise their hands. 
We know asthma is the greatest cause of school absences.
  So why am I starting off discussing the EPA by raising these issues 
of clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, Superfund sites, 
brownfield sites? Because the Administrator of the EPA will be carrying 
out the laws that make sure our air is safe, our water is safe, our 
drinking water is safe, and the Superfund sites are cleaned up. That is 
what the Administrator of the EPA does.
  For the longest time, we have had a holdup of Gina McCarthy, who was 
nominated by our President, not because people don't respect her and 
not because people don't like her. The woman served five Republican 
Governors, one Democratic President. She got a unanimous vote in her 
current position as Deputy Administrator. They did it because, frankly, 
I don't think they like the Clean Air Act. I don't think they like the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. I don't think they like the Clean Water Act. I 
don't think they like the Superfund Act. So instead of going at it head 
on, because they know they don't have a chance to repeal those laws 
because the American people revere those laws, they go about it in a 
roundabout way: Oh, I didn't get the papers I wanted. I didn't get the 
questions answered. Well, how about 1,000 questions being submitted to 
Gina McCarthy and she answered every one.
  So all of this holdup--stopping this woman from getting the promotion 
she deserves--isn't about her--it isn't about her. It is about the fact 
that they don't like the Environmental Protection Agency, even though 
it was created by a Republican President named Richard Nixon and 
supported by every President, Democratic and Republican.
  Then, of course, there is the issue of climate change. There is the 
issue of too much carbon pollution in the air, which we are seeing the 
results of almost every day. The Administrator of the EPA will be 
carrying out the President's vision for how to get that carbon 
pollution out of the air, and she will be good at it.
  When 98 percent of scientists tell us climate change is real, it is 
real. I guess 2 percent of scientists are still saying tobacco doesn't 
cause cancer. Well, bless their hearts, that is their right, but I am 
not following them, nor are the American people following the 2 percent 
of scientists who say tobacco isn't linked to lung cancer. And, thank 
God, we are seeing more and more Americans walk away from smoking.

[[Page 11697]]

But I have to tell my colleagues, for years we had doctors paid by the 
tobacco industry and scientists paid by the tobacco industry to say, 
under oath: We don't see the connection. The tobacco officials 
themselves actually said that. I will never forget the sight of one 
after the other: We swear to tell the truth. There is no connection.
  Today we had a hearing in the environment committee. It was a 
terrific hearing about the science of climate change. The Republicans 
brought forward two witnesses. They were not scientists; they were 
economists. They said doing anything about climate is terrible for the 
economy.
  I have to tell my colleagues, I looked at the organizations they 
represented: funded by the Koch Brothers, funded by ExxonMobil. That is 
a fact. So this isn't about Gina McCarthy, this whole holdup where we 
had an agency with an acting head--a very good guy, but we need someone 
in this position who is going to have the gravitas of this confirmation 
to head the agency.
  If we look at the lives that have been saved because of the Clean Air 
Act, and if we look at the economic prosperity that came about because 
of the Clean Air Act, it would shake people up. Over a 200-percent 
increase in the GDP as the Clean Air Act was being carried out; jobs 
and jobs and jobs created after the special interests told us it would 
be calamitous.
  Do my colleagues know what we found? And we will find it out, as 
President Clinton just said yesterday at a ceremony where I was proud 
to be present. When we clean up the environment and we do it in a good 
way, a wise way, a way that Gina McCarthy will lead us toward, we will 
create hundreds of thousands of good jobs. We will bring alternative 
clean energies to the table that will wind up saving money for the 
American people.
  I drive an electric hybrid car, and I hardly ever go to the gas 
station. It cost a little bit more in the beginning, but after a few 
years I had it paid for, and after that our family is saving money. I 
was able to put a solar rooftop on my home. Granted, it is in 
California where the Sun shines a lot. The fact is, in a few years, I 
will be reaping the benefits of it because I do not pay for 
electricity.
  So we can reap the benefits. Instead of telling people it is going to 
hurt them, the truth is it is going to help them.
  I will never forget when the wall came down in Eastern Europe. I 
visited that wall in Germany. When that wall came down, the first thing 
Eastern European countries did was clean up the air. People could not 
see. The truth is, if a person can't breathe, they can't work, period. 
In China, they can barely see, and they are going to undertake a huge 
cleanup of their environment.
  So this battle about Gina McCarthy is not about Gina McCarthy; it is 
about the fact that a lot of our colleagues simply believe we would be 
better off without an EPA. If my colleagues look back at the lives 
saved because of the EPA, if they look at the jobs created because of 
the EPA, my colleagues would think, I believe--if they really looked at 
it without a prejudice--they would agree with the American people who 
support the Environmental Protection Agency in numbers that are 70 
percent, 80 percent.
  So to say that I am relieved we are having this vote is an 
understatement. I am so happy to see this moment come, when we will put 
in place an Administrator for the EPA who will do us all proud, who 
will be fair to all sides, and who will move our Nation forward in both 
cleaning up the environment and creating good jobs in the process.
  I thank the Chair very much. I don't see anyone else here, so I note 
the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of 
     Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
         Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Benjamin L. Cardin, 
           Christopher A. Coons, Patrick J. Leahy, Tom Carper, Ron 
           Wyden, Patty Murray, Tom Udall, Martin Heinrich, 
           Bernard Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Max Baucus, 
           Richard J. Durbin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, 
           Brian Schatz.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 31, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 179 Ex.]

                                YEAS--69

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Portman
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Vitter
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--31

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are 
31. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in 
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  Pursuant to S. Res. 16 of the 113th Congress, there will now be 8 
hours of debate equally divided in the usual form prior to a vote on 
the McCarthy nomination.
  Who yields time?
  The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, I rise to talk about the substance of 
the Gina McCarthy nomination. It is a very important nomination. It is 
a very important Agency that has been taking dramatic action in the 
last 4 years. Gina McCarthy is not some outsider coming to this anew. 
She has been at the center of that very dramatic, and in my opinion, 
draconian action, in a methodical march against affordable, reliable 
energy.
  The EPA has crafted and will continue to put forward multiple rules 
to stop the use of coal as part of our energy mix, to increase prices 
at the pump, to create energy scarcity at a time when energy 
independence is within our reach. This is a crucial debate. Because 
while the President says he is for all of the above, while he says he 
wants to pursue that strategy, the particular policies of EPA have done 
the opposite. It has not been all of the above. It has been a war on 
coal. It has not been energy security, it has been increasing prices at 
the pump. It has not been energy independence, it has been trying to 
muffle the progress we can make to produce good, reliable, affordable 
energy right here in our country.
  The EPA will play a pivotal role in the execution and implementation 
of the President's recently announced climate action plan. With this 
edict from the President, EPA is further

[[Page 11698]]

emboldened and will strengthen its grip on the Nation's economy.
  EPA's significant rulemaking agenda is not only estimated to cost 
billions of dollars, but it suffers from inherently flawed foundations. 
In the recent past, this has necessitated the reconsideration or 
revision of multiple rules after they were promulgated--for instance, 
reconsideration and revisions to the mercury and air toxics rule, the 
boiler MACT rule, the cross-State air pollution rule, the oil and gas 
NSPS rule, and the Portland cement rule. So there alone you see the 
deep flaws in what they have been doing, because they have had to back 
up and clean up the mess.
  EPA needs to show the public the truth and the ultimate consequences 
of its actions. The extent of the economic harm of the rules put 
forward during the last 4 years and those they are talking about for 
the next 4 years must be known to the public not only through FOIA 
requests, not only through congressional inquiries, not only through 
more accessibility to information which we have won, but by being 
honest with the American people about their policies.
  Let me talk about a few areas where this is particularly important.
  First, greenhouse gas regulation. The regulation of greenhouse gases 
alone is expected to cost more than 300 to $400 billion a year, and it 
will raise energy costs across the board.
  EPA will continue to issue regulations industry by industry until 
virtually all aspects of the American economy are constrained by 
regulatory requirements and high energy prices.
  When the EPA IG investigated the basis upon which EPA moved forward 
with a greenhouse gas regulation endangerment finding, the IG found 
that EPA did not follow its own peer-review procedures to ensure that 
the science behind the decision was sound. This is a very important 
point, and we need more and different action from the EPA.
  Directly related to that are the so-called social costs of carbon. In 
order to justify this regulatory regime that I am talking about, put 
forward by the administration, including unilateral action to be 
undertaken as part of the climate action plan, for the second time in 
just a few years an interagency working group crafted, behind closed 
doors, a monetized estimate of the damages caused by emitting an 
additional ton of CO2 in 1 year. These estimates are 
referred to as the social cost of carbon.
  The problem is that the EPA completely jiggered the methodology 
behind that to obtain a certain result. In fact, OMB has guidance on 
how to go about this. They have specific guidance on what discount 
rates to use. And the IWG failed to use their normal recommended 
discount rate for a very simple reason: it wouldn't get them to the end 
goal, the objective they needed to get to. This is more evidence of the 
serious problems we have with EPA.
  Another important category is the ozone national ambient air quality 
standards. Beyond the regulation of greenhouse gases, EPA will propose 
revisions to the ozone national ambient air quality standards which, if 
set between 60 and 70 ppb, would cost potentially hundreds of billions 
of dollars annually. EPA itself estimates now that this would cost 
between 19 and $90 billion annually and would likely find 85 percent of 
U.S. counties designated ``nonattainment.'' This is a big deal. EPA 
needs to talk honestly with the American people about where it is 
pushing us.
  Overreach. In general, this Agency's overreach has been historic. For 
instance, in an attempt to smear the idea of hydraulic fracturing, EPA 
has carried out a campaign against that process in an attempt to 
justify unnecessary Federal regulations that would usurp the successful 
and traditional regulation of that process.
  The EPA, in three separate instances--Pavillion, WY; Dimock, PA; and 
Parker County, TX--came out with outlandish and unsubstantiated claims 
of contamination and ridiculous claims of dangers, such as houses 
exploding due to hydraulic fracture. In all three of those cases, EPA 
has been forced to walk away from their baseless claims and withdraw 
from their investigatory witch hunts.
  There is yet another example of improper action and complete 
overreach and mismanagement of existing programs--the renewable fuel 
standard. While that fuel standard, in my opinion, is inherently flawed 
and may be in need of outright repeal, EPA is in charge of its current 
implementation. It is not taking action while a crisis mounts under 
that current implementation.
  As renewable fuel mandates increase each year while demand for 
transportation fuels decreases, refiners are forced to blend more 
biofuels into a gasoline and diesel pool that is shrinking. We are 
hitting a blend wall. It is a mounting crisis. It is right before us. 
EPA is managing--or I should say mismanaging--this existing program. 
EPA has existing powers to do something about it so we don't hit the 
blend wall, so we don't cause unnecessary spikes in prices at the pump, 
and it is not happening.
  Those are the highlights--or I should say the low lights. Those are 
some of the obvious areas where this Obama EPA--with Gina McCarthy as a 
key player--has acted to the detriment of the American people, jobs, 
the economy, and our future.
  It is for those reasons that I continue to have profound concern with 
this direction at EPA. As I have said, the present nominee is not an 
outsider. She is not new. She does not have no element of involvement. 
She has been at the very heart of many of these matters as head of the 
clean air program. For those reasons, I not only express my strong 
reservations, I will vote against the nomination of Gina McCarthy.
  I urge my colleagues to look long and hard at the record of this EPA. 
It has been a job killer. It has slowed economic recovery, and it 
threatens to do even more damage. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  I yield back my time and invite others who would like to speak to 
come to the floor immediately.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield back all remaining time.
  I understand the Republican side has yielded all time, and I would 
like to see us get to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, all time is yielded back.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of Regina McCarthy, of Massachusetts, to be Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency?
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative called the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 59, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 180 Ex.]

                                YEAS--59

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Markey
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

[[Page 11699]]



                                NAYS--40

     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Chiesa
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Wicker
       
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I am 95 percent certain there will be no 
more votes today. The question I am not as certain about is what 
happens on Monday. We will know before the day is out whether we will 
have to have a Monday vote or votes. We will keep that in mind. 
Everyone should keep it in mind.
  I ask unanimous consent the motion to reconsider be considered made 
and laid on the table, there being no intervening action or debate; 
that no further motions be in order; and that President Obama be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume 
legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________