Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jim Inhofe <jim.inhofe@inhofe.enews.senate.gov>
Date: May 18, 2014 9:15:53 AM CDT
To: bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com <bobbygmartin1938@gmail.com>
Subject: EPA's politically-driven tactics
Reply-To: 2100116267.74505.272@enews.senate.gov
If you are having trouble viewing this message or would like to share it on a social network, you can view the message online.
Dear Friends,
As many of you are aware, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Obama's leadership has spiraled into a bureaucratic mess. The unchecked regulations coming from the EPA are hurting our agricultural industry and deteriorating America's energy affordability and reliability. [READ HERE: The Oklahoman Editorial on Climate Regulations].
The agency has also been in the spot light for paying six-figure salaries and work-incentive bonuses to employees that were either not doing their jobs or not showing up to work. [READ HERE: USA Today on the EPA's face CIA agent is tip of 'fraudulent iceberg'].
Not as noticeable are the politically-driven tactics within the agency to implement the President's controversial climate change regulations to hide their devastating impacts from Americans and safeguard vulnerable democrats during elections.
Ahead of the 2012 presidential election, I first sounded the alarm on the EPA's unethical practice of delaying regulations in order to influence elections. I released a report in 2012of the harmful regulations I foresaw the administration attempting to push aside until after the President was reelected. The Washington Post later vindicated my warning when several anonymous administration officials spoke to the paper of how they were instructed to withhold rule proposals for political reasons. [READ HERE: Inhofe Informant on EPA playing politics]
Now as the country approaches critical elections this November, the EPA is at it once again. As Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Oversight, my latest investigation has resulted in what appears to be the EPA intentionally delaying until after the 2014 elections a regulation called the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) rule, which will make our electricity grid less reliable and less affordable for Americans.
On April 28, I sent a letter to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy asking for answers to simple questions about the timeline for the EPA's NSPS rule. You see, once an agency proposes a rule or regulation it must be submitted to the Federal Register to publish and begin the required public comment period. This process allows citizens, businesses, organizations and any stakeholders to provide additional insight, information or input on the proposed rule. For the NSPS rule, the EPA then has one full calendar year to consider outside comments and finalize the details and language of the rule before implementation begins.
During an EPW Committee hearing on Jan. 16, Adm. McCarthy stated that she submitted the NSPS rule to the Federal Register's office "as soon as that proposal was released" to the public on Sept. 20, 2013. When in fact, the EPA did not submit the rule to the Federal Register until Nov. 25, 2013, an unprecedented 66-days later. When adding the average time in which it takes the Federal Register to process a submitted proposal, the rule will now not need to be finalized until January 2015, long after critical elections.
Had the EPA submitted the rule according to the timeline President Obama and Adm. McCarthy had told the public, the rule would have been finalized before the November elections, giving me and my colleagues the opportunity to file a Congressional Review Act (CRA) for the rule. A CRA forces the Senate Majority Leader to bring the rule up for a vote. This would have forced many vulnerable Democrats to go on the record supporting their President on his destructive climate change regulation while harming their constituents' future accesses to cheap electricity or instead choosing to vote against the NSPS rule and possibly block it from being implemented.
I will continue to press Adm. McCarthy on why her on-the-record statement failed to support the actual actions of her agency. I will also continue to work to uncover the political games being played within the agency that is impacting the future of our nation's affordable energy. It's time for accountability and transparency within the Obama Administration, a campaign promise his EPA has yet to fulfill. That is what I am working to accomplish in Washington and I appreciate your support.
Sincerely,
Jim Inhofe
Office Locations
Washington, DC Office:
205 Russell Senate Office Building | Washington, DC 20510 -3603
Main: (202) 224-4721 | Fax: (202) 228-0380Tulsa, OK Office:
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104 -6511
Main: (918) 748-5111
Fax: (918) 748-5119Oklahoma City, OK Office:
1900 NW Expressway
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Main: (405) 608-4381
Fax: (405) 608-4120McAlester, OK Office:
215 E Choctaw Ave
Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
Main: (918) 426-0933
Fax: (918) 426-0935Enid, OK Office:
302 N Independence
Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
Main: (580) 234-5105
Fax: (580) 234-5094
No comments:
Post a Comment