After submitting more than 1,000 questions to President Obama’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Senate Republicans walked out of Gina McCarthy’s nomination hearing, claiming she failed to provide them with all of the answers they sought.
Among those pressing for answers is Louisiana Republican Sen. David Vitter, a congressman whose top campaign contributors since 2007 have included energy interests opposed to stringent EPA standards.
Vitter isn’t alone, as he’s joined by a coalition of Republican senators set on delaying McCarthy’s nomination until she answers a set of questions no EPA leader has ever been forced to answer.
“I believe she is a good person and her assurance that EPA would become more responsive under her management has been encouraging,” Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama told NBC News. “However, neither Ms. McCarthy nor the agency she would like to lead has been responsive to many of the reasonable requests of senators tasked with advising and consenting to this nomination.”
While Republicans claim McCarthy isn’t being upfront, Democrats are throwing the argument back, saying Sessions and his fellow party members are using the litany of questions presented to EPA appointee as a stalling tactic.
McCarthy’s nomination was approved by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works in a 10-8 vote. Her approval now hangs in limbo in the Senate.
Reasonable or unreasonable requests?
Included in McCarthy’s long list of questions was one that demanded she answer how many people in the U.S. suffered from mercury poisoning in 2012 as a result of coal-powered plants. The answer? About 1,700, according to Bloomberg Businessweek.
Yet not all questions have such concrete answers, including an inquiry made by Republican Sen. David Vitter that questions research behind the correlation between air pollution and death.
As Bloomberg writer Mark Drajem notes, the EPA doesn’t possess that data, as it stems from a Harvard study that relied on participants whose identities remain confidential. Because of this, the content and specifics of the study must remain private, even from the EPA.
In all, Vitter submitted 400 of the 1,000 questions presented to McCarthy.
It’s questions like this that will likely lead Republicans down a “no compromise” path, based on an accusation that McCarthy isn’t upfront and, therefore, not worthy of heading an agency the Republican Party would like to see cut back.
While created by Republican Richard Nixon in the 1970s, members of his party today claim things have gotten out of control, compromising the industrial might of the U.S. in the process. When Nixon began the program, it had 4,000 employees. Now, that number has reached 18,000, with a budget of $8.5 billion.
“I doubt anyone associated with the creation of the EPA expected it to have the far-reaching powers it has now, and certainly not Nixon,” University of Ohio historian Paul Milazzo told NBC News. “Regulating greenhouse gases? Not in their wildest dreams.”
Vitter is threatening to filibuster McCarthy’s nomination unless she answers his and other Republicans’ questions and assures the party that she will lead the EPA in the adoption of an “economic model” of evaluating costs and benefits of pollution regulations — specifically, one that is endorsed by the energy industry.
Essentially, they want her to be a leader who eases up on regulations.
Vitter’s moves are in line with his advocacy for the oil, gas and coal industries, the very people who largely have fueled his political career. The oil and gas industries were the top industry donors to Vitter’s campaign financing from 2007 to 2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Adams and Reese, a law firm specializing in representing energy companies, was the top donor to Vitter from 2007 to 2012, contributing $37,850. Chevron Corp., a leader in the oil and gas industry, donated $29,800.
Will this really help the Republican cause?
There’s no doubt Republicans want the EPA to roll back its regulatory practices. Yet there’s question as to what this method of stalling her appointment will have.
As Washington Post blogger Juliet Eilperin states in a May 29 post, the interim EPA leader, Bob Perciasepe, can serve an unlimited term as McCarthy’s nomination process is drawn out.
Perciasepe isn’t popular among Republicans, as he served key roles in the agency during the Bill Clinton presidency.
“Senate Republicans may be stepping on their own big feet by blocking McCarthy’s appointment,” Clean Air Watch President Frank O’Donnell told Eilperin. “EPA’s acting boss, Bob Perciasepe, is no less a skilled professional manager than McCarthy. In fact, some believe McCarthy is actually more willing to compromise with the industry.”
Yet Perciasepe isn’t likely to make any key decisions while arguments surrounding McCarthy’s merits are being drawn out.
John Walke, former EPA employee and now National Resources Defense Council attorney, claims the stall tactic could actually be harmful for the agency and the nation’s environmental regulations, as it will delay key decisions.
“It impedes the operation of EPA if a politically appointed administrator (McCarthy) is not running the agency … the agency has never gone this long without having a confirmed EPA administrator and that means there are necessary decisions that are awaiting her confirmation,” Walke told NBC News.
Last year, the EPA took a huge step forward in the crackdown on coal-burning facilities by limiting carbon dioxide emissions. As noted in The New York Times, this move was seen as one that could halt construction of new coal-powered plants altogether. In April, the EPA delayed its proposal.
It’s now one of a number of EPA decisions awaiting confirmation.
Is this about changing the EPA?
Playing the delay game is nothing new to EPA opponents.
In December, Mint Press News reported that an American Legislative Exchange Council energy task force meeting, sponsored by five coal-related companies, provided tips to legislators and big coal representatives on how they could delay implementation of EPA rules.
The information came to light after Greenpeace obtained ALEC documents detailing the agenda of the task force meeting.
“Through its 2012 Resolution, ALEC continues to support staff and member efforts with their Congressional delegations to take legislative and other actions to address EPA regulations that are unreasonable,” the ALEC documents state.
The documents go on to hit on the very argument Vitter is now using, calling on ALEC members to pressure lawmakers to overturn regulations they believe are unwise.
“These efforts would focus on EPA regulations that are now not scientifically justified, technologically achievable, economically harmful or prevents deployment of supercritical or ultra-supercritical generation and advanced environmental performance improvement technologies,” the document states.
Efforts to limit the scope of EPA regulatory power have already been seen in the midst of the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” boom. Oil companies are exempt from the the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
The exemption became known as the “Halliburton loophole,” as it was inserted in 2005 under the supervision of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, former CEO of Halliburton, the company responsible for inventing fracking in the 1940s.
The Halliburton loophole represents the ongoing tug of war between the environmental community and the energy industry.
As environmental advocates call out companies for seeking to work outside the parameters of regulations, the industry fights back with arguments that overbearing regulations kill the economy.