GOP senators boycott vote on McCarthy for EPA

Frustrated by what they call a lack of transparency from the EPA, all eight Republican senators on the Environment and Public Works committee boycotted a scheduled vote on Obama nominee Gina McCarthy to head the EPA.

Joshua Roberts/Reuters/File
Gina McCarthy testifies before a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on her nomination to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on Capitol Hill in Washington in April 11. On May 9, 2013, all eight GOP senators on the committee boycotted the hearing scheduled to vote on her nomination, citing frustration with the EPA rather than McCarthy herself.

Senate Republicans boycotted Thursday a scheduled committee vote on President Barack Obama's pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

All eight GOP members of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee failed to show up at the meeting to consider the nomination of Gina McCarthy, who currently heads the EPA's air pollution office. Committee rules require at least two minority members to be present for a vote.

Republicans are demanding answers from the EPA on a range of transparency issues. But they aren't satisfied with the responses they've received.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, who heads the committee, urged Republicans to vote, or she said Democrats alone would advance McCarthy's bid.

White House spokesman Jay Carney, speaking to reporters on Air Force One en route to Texas, called on Republicans "to stop the theater and to move forward with the process."

Carney said there has been "an historic level of obstructionism" on McCarthy and other nominees.

House and Senate Republican leaders told Obama Thursday that they will refuse to nominate candidates to serve on an advisory board that is to play a role in holding down Medicare costs under the new health care act.

And on Wednesday, Republicans used a procedural move to delay a Senate panel from considering the confirmation of Obama's pick to the head the Labor Department.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.