The head of the Environmental Protection Agency played regulation whack-a-mole Thursday on Capitol Hill, as Republicans on the House Science Committee spent the morning popping credibility questions about each of their least favorite regulations.
Gina McCarthy had been called to testify about GOP charges that the EPA uses “secret science” to justify its regulations and fails to balance economic costs with environmental benefits.
Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith, R-Texas, wanted answers about a leaked proposal that would give the agency expanded jurisdiction over waterways. Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., questioned ethanol mandates under the renewable-fuel standard, contending elevated levels of the biofuel in gasoline would damage engines. Rep. Ralph Hall, R-Texas, quizzed McCarthy on hydraulic fracturing, twice accused her of filibustering and, exasperated, said: “Maybe I can’t understand anything you say because you’re hard to believe, ma’am.”
Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, challenged McCarthy’s contention that carbon capture and sequestration technology for coal-fired power plants is near commercial readiness. Rep. Randy Hultgren, R-Ill., took issue with a rule that requires utilities to improve aquatic-life protections on intake equipment. Smith asked another question on ozone standards.
McCarthy countered that “science is the backbone of our decision-making” and praised the peer review and public disclosure methods used by the agency. “I’m incredibly proud of the science this agency relies on,” she said.
She defended each of the regulations challenged by lawmakers as well as the scientific process EPA used to develop them.
But Republicans would have none of it. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., accused the agency of creating a “closed loop” that drafts sweeping regulations and then rigs scientific findings to justify them. And while most of the GOP committee members questioned the science behind the regulations, one questioned its usefulness in the first place. “Does science ever change or get proven wrong?” asked Rep. Randy Weber, R-Texas, showing little surprise when McCarthy answered in the affirmative.
As the hearing went on, questions strayed into some more unusual subject matter, as evidenced on Twitter.
Rep. Massie just asked McCarthy if she is looking to regulate the methane emissions from cows — what happens when hearings go too long.— Laura Barron-Lopez (@lbarronlopez) November 14, 2013
Gina McCarthy tells House committee EPA not exploring regulating methane emissions from cow flatulence.— Jason Plautz (@Jason_Plautz) November 14, 2013
McCarthy was given the occasional reprieve when some Democrats offered up their questions. Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., asked her to talk about how EPA rules have created jobs. Rep. Donna Edwards, D-Md., wondered about documentation of climate change. “We have a wealth of data that is more than sufficient,” McCarthy said. “Great!” Edwards replied.
What We're Following See More »
The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.
"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."