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 »
Congress will need to vote on Donald Trump's pick of Lt. General H.R. McMaster to be his next national security adviser, but not for the reason you think. The position of NSA doesn't require Senate approval, but since McMaster currently holds a three-star military position, Congress will need to vote to allow him to keep his position instead of forcing him to drop one star and become a Major General, which could potentially affect his pension.
"The Senate Intelligence Committee is seeking to ensure that records related to Russia’s alleged intervention in the 2016 U.S. elections are preserved as it begins investigating that country’s ties to the Trump team. The panel sent more than a dozen letters to 'organizations, agencies and officials' on Friday, asking them to preserve materials related to the congressional investigation, according to a Senate aide, who was not authorized to comment publicly. The Senate Intelligence Committee is spearheading the most comprehensive probe on Capitol Hill of Russia’s alleged activities in the elections."
Retired Russian diplomats and members of Vladimir Putin's staff are compiling a dossier "on Donald Trump's psychological makeup" for the Russian leader. "Among its preliminary conclusions is that the new American leader is a risk-taker who can be naïve, according to a senior Kremlin adviser."