Hill Heat

EPA SCANDAL	CURRENT STATUS
The denial of the California waiver petition.	January 8: California and 15 other states sue to overturn denial. April 9: Waxman issues latest subpoena for documents involving White House. April 22: NHTSA issues fuel-economy standards that it claims preempts state global warming standards; states warn of lawsuit.
Failure to obey Supreme Court mandate to make a global warming pollution endangerment finding.	March 27: EPA announces it will ask for a new round of comments. April 2: Officials of 18 states sue to require the EPA to act within 60 days April 2: EPA documents are subpoenaed by House Global Warming Committee; the documents have not been turned over. April 18: Court orders EPA to file its response to the state suit by May 8.
White House interference in ozone standards.	April 16: Waxman subpoenas White House documents. May 8: Date of scheduled Oversight Committee hearing with Administrator Johnson; postponed when Johnson refuses to appear.
Mary Gade firing.	May 1: EPA Region V Administrator Mary Gade resigns, saying “There’s no question this is about Dow.” Sen. Whitehouse (D-RI) and Rep. Dingell (D-MI) announce intent to investigate. May 7: Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington file two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with the EPA regarding Gade’s resignation.
Politicization of the EPA.	April 23: Union of Concerned Scientists issues survey of 1600 staff scientists describing mass politicization and political interference. April 29: Sen. Boxer (D-CA) releases Goverment Accountability Office report detailing politicization of toxic regulation. May 7: Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Subcommittee holds hearing into politicization of EPA.

9:30 Boxer Implications for children’s health.

9:48 Whitehouse IRIS. Mary Gade. The EPA is being polluted.

9:55 Inhofe I don’t believe Johnson is corrupt. I believe in “sound science.” We are passing economic burdens onto the states. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.

10:00 George Gray I serve as the Agency’s science adviser. EPA views the relationship between science, science policy, and regulation as a continuum. Our scientists are encouraged to publish. The scientific method encourages critical thinking and disagreement. We rely on policy processes to make decisions. From the lab bench to the Administrator’s desk, we follow a science-to-decision-making continuum in common with other federal agencies that rely on both science and science-policy considerations in decision-making.

10:06: Whitehouse If what you said is true, why did 889 scientists report political interference?

Gray We have to be careful about those numbers. This report provides useful information. It’s not statistically appropriate view of the EPA.

Whitehouse Just the raw data point.

Gray The number is unacceptable to me.

Whitehouse Why doesn’t your testimony reference this in any way? In the last two hearings we’ve heard enormous criticism about how OMB has been stuffed into even in the beginning of the process. These are fairly serious people making this challenge. There appears to be significant support for these concerns. And you act as if nothing is going on. There’s nothing going on but ‘yammering critics’?

Gray This agency relies on the best available decisions. We are very transparent in the way that we do things.

Whitehouse How are the secret meetings with OMB jibe with your claim that this is done transparently?

Gray Transparency is key to the way we do our assessments. The discussions we have with the rest of the federal agencies are kept deliberative. In the end of the IRIS, the assessment must pass strict peer review. There’s not room for monkeyshines.

Whitehouse Is it your testimony that OMB involvement is purely scientific?

Gray The development of scientific assessment involve science and science policy considerations. At the end, the decisions are transparently described.

Whitehouse The OMB and interagency IRIS review lack transparency.

10:12 Alexander How many scientists are employed by the EPA?

Gray Around 7000.

Alexander The recent ozone decision. How many scientists involved?

Gray Up to a hundred.

Alexander In the scientific advisory committee made a recommendation to the administrator.

Gray Yes.

Alexander The recommendation was that the standard should go to .06-.07. Is it possible those scientists would say it was political interference with the decision?

Gray Well..

Alexander Would you say one scientist might say their decision was overruled by political interference?

Gray I suppose so.

Alexander What factors caused the administrator to ignore the recommendation?

Gray He takes very seriously the advice.

Alexander You don’t know why. Lots of county mayors said they didn’t want it because they would lose auto jobs. Might have he considered economic factors?

Gray By law he is not allowed to consider that. There’s a lot of science.

Alexander Are the CASAC recommendations public?

Gray Yes.

Alexander Did the administrator explain why he made a different decision?

Gray He followed the requirement to do that.

Alexander That sounds like what senators do every day.

10:17 Boxer I wanted to show you a series of charts with headlines. This hearing is extremely important. If you just read the Supreme Court case decided in February 2001 written by Scalia. The Clean Air Act unambiguously bars economic cost considerations. They are not to allow politics into this. We can listen to the special interests. They’re not supposed to. It’s a disgrace. Politics is front and center at the EPA. The GAO knows what they’re talking about. The scientists are not being listened to and the special interests are invited in and everything is kept secret. I have to say, Mr. Gray. What do you mean when you say it’s transparent?

Gray We lay out the scientific and other bases for our decisions.

Boxer Do you support keeping the meetings secret?

Gray I disagree with GAO.

Boxer You agree with OMB that these documents have to be kept secret. You agree with keeping it secret and yet you say you believe in transparency.

Gray At the end of the process we are very transparent.

Boxer You have lost all credibility with me. It’s an outrage. Be honest, say you don’t agree with transparency.

10:23 Inhofe The UCS is a “radical green group.”

Gray There has been reluctance among some to acknowledge the degree of uncertainty in our science. It’s been really important that for the credibility of our decisions we have to characterize uncertainty.

Inhofe How has the ORD improved air quality?

Gray Our science helps support decisions about ambient air standards. The tightening of the particulate matter standard, ozone standard, lead standard.

10:29 Klobuchar In Minnesota we believe in science. CDC director Julie Geberding’s testimony was redacted. And now Mary Gade was forced out.

Gray In this case I have no direct knowledge. I cannot comment on an internal personnel matter.

Klobuchar How can we restore the credibility of the agency?

Gray The credibility of this agency is enhanced by the quality of our work. In our office we have no restrictions on our scientists or discussions with the press.

Klobuchar Why can’t we see the comments?

Gray You can see what outside scientists recommend.

Klobuchar Why did the administrator ignore the CASAC recommendation?

Gray The administrator did not ignore CASAC. That is the basis of his ultimate decision. He made a different choice based on his view of the science.

Klobuchar It was the unanimous recommendation of the advisers.

Gray Ultimately it is the administrator’s decision.

10:34 Whitehouse You admit other considerations would be illegal. What other science did Administrator Johnson look to on the ozone standards?

Gray This is a very good example of how uncertainty in science plays a factor.

Whitehouse You’re telling me the unanimous decisions of the advisory panels creates uncertainty?

Gray I certainly do. The panels put particular weight on the Adams study. The author said they misinterpreted it.

Whitehouse Frankly, I can’t see a legitimate explanation for this chain of events. This is not an alien group.

Gray We certainly never ignore the recommendations.

Whitehouse We can’t see the reasoning. Nobody can show me where the science is. Frankly, uncertainty is a lousy justification. In fact, because your job is to protect people, one would think you would err on the low side.

10:38 Alexander Did they not recommend .61? .62? .63? .64? They disagreed between .60 and .70. The scientists disagreed among themselves more than the administrator did. They can’t even agree between .06 and .07. In my opinion they disagreed more between themselves than the administrator did with them. Whose responsibility is it?

Gray The administrator’s.

Alexander Is the panel’s recommendation advisory?

Gray Yes.

Alexander The administrator’s decision was closer to the top range of the committee than the top range was to the bottom range. The only objection was that there was an interagency review. And that review isn’t public.

Gray That’s correct.

Alexander The Republican senators had a private discussion. I would think the Executive Branch is like that.

10:41 Boxer Comparing EPA to us doesn’t even make sense. They according to Justice Scalia cannot consider all these things we can consider. Your continuous claim that there’s transparency is ludicrous. This is Alice in Wonderland. There is no transparency. They didn’t follow the science. They went over the level any scientist recommended. Do you know why Administrator Johnson could not be here?

Gray I don’t know, but he’s been out of work because of his back.

Boxer There are serious charges that the White House interfered with this. The administrator needs to be up here. Do you know we have yet to receive emails from the White House dealing with the California waiver?

Gray No.

Boxer Will you find out and send me a letter?

Gray I can do that.

Boxer It is not a game. We have had a stall for seven and half years on climate change. There is no transparency here.

10:45 Klobuchar I want to follow up on the perchlorate hearing we held yesterday. Why has the EPA failed to issue a standard?

Gray Under the Clean Air Act there are no consideration of costs. Perchlorate is a very serious issue. We are moving to have a decision on perchlorate by the end of the year.

Klobuchar How long have we known since this was a risk?

Gray We are looking a toxicological models.

Gray Scientific information never converges on a single point. We try to reflect the uncertainty on that.

Klobuchar Do you think good science comes from the Annapolis Center? You were on the board. They just gave an award to Sen. Inhofe.

Gray I haven’t been on the board for the last eight years.

Boxer The statement that costs are not a consideration are a big lie. For you to sit here and say you follow the science. You’ve lost every lawsuit. I’m counting 11. You have tried to defend the indefensible and you have failed, as far as this senator is concerned.

Alexander I would ask consent to put into the record the recommendation of CASAC and the response of the EPA Administrator which under the law he has the sole authority to make. He agreed with the top range of the advisers more than the top range agreed with the bottom range.

Klobuchar I would like to put into the record the many health associations who agreed with the .060 standard.

11:14 George Thurston When the administrator ignores CASAC he ignore the Congress. It’s just untenable to cite uncertainty in choosing a standard less stringent. The Clean Air Act states that in the face of uncertainty a more stringent standard must be chosen. There is no uncertainty that there are adverse health effects at .075 level. The only uncertainty is the amount. Sen. Inhofe and I apparently agree on using “sound science.” And that is defined by law as CASAC.

11:19 Scientists understand science but they also have personal opinions.

11:35 Baucus I urge the EPA to make decisions based on science.

11:41 Whitehouse It’s important to remember when we discuss these process questions that has real consequences for real people. They have to stay inside or risk real medical problems. When EPA strays from its own science is it evenly balanced between straying too far towards the environment or too far towards industry?

Balbus In all of the cases I’m aware of, the decisions were tilted toward industry.

12:00 Whitehouse Dr. Grifo. When you have OMB with the ability to have secret meetings in the science stage of the EPA determination and inject its point of view, what safeguards are you aware of in the process that would restrict the OMB input to prevent, to put it bluntly, shilling for industry?

Grifo Nothing that I’m aware of.

Whitehouse Dr. Michaels, as you’ve looked at institutional forces to twist the science, there’s the legendary ones like the American Tobacco Institute and the American Lead Institute. Have you ever come across the Annapolis Center to which Mr. Gray belonged?

Michaels I address that very question in my book. The Center was founded by a vice president of the National Association of Manufacturers, and was funded by Exxon. Their mantra is “uncertainty.” There’s no science there. Unfortunately we’re seeing a whole industry of for-profit scientist consultants and front groups. You can always find someone who appears to be a scientist to complain. They talk about “sound science” but it just sounds like science.

Whitehouse Other people have been cleared out of positions on advisory boards. One of them includes Deborah Rice. They even scrubbed the record of anything she said. The reason was an asserted conflict of interest. She had stated her professional view on an issue on behalf of the state of Maine in a regulatory hearing. Is that generally understood as a conflict of interest? A conflict of interest is a financial link. I ask this because as we were preparing for this hearing we had scientists who said that they would love to testify but they fear retaliation and her name was invoked.

Michaels It is truly Orwellian. Dr. Rice is a respected toxicologist working for the state of Maine.

12:09 Boxer It’s a sin to have that attitude. I believe that attitude prevails in the EPA. I believe our children’s health is expendable to those folks in the EPA. Just as I believe the tobacco industry made that decision. This committee has a job to do, and it’s very important to blow the whistle.

Thurston There are epidemiological studies that show effects below the standard the administrator set. In 1984 we followed children in western New Jersey. We demonstrated lung-function decrements at well below the 100ppb ozone one-hour standard. At the time the standard was 120 ppb, and they used controlled exposure studies to deny the epidemiology. We have the same problem today. Real people getting real exposure in the real world show these effects. Hospital admissions. There are mortality effects of ozone. We know there are mortality effects. The OMB and the RIA does consider economics.

Boxer I predict a lawsuit on this and the people will win this. Could you describe your concern with the children’s chemical evaluation program?

Balbus EDF was involved in the development of this program. We were highly critical in the multi-tier structure. This pilot study started in 2000 and I was part of the original peer-review panel. The major issue is its incredibly slow pace. It’s been a slow walk ground to a halt.

Boxer The EPA’s chemical assessment management program. North American Competitive Council: Chevron, GM, Lockheed Martin. Their mission isn’t protecting children’s health.

Balbus I don’t know exactly what their role is.

Boxer The EPA when they deal with these pollutants in the air, by law, they must only consider the health of the people. I want to send a message to the workers over there: Change is coming. You’re going to be able to proud once again.

12:24 Whitehouse It has been a pleasure for me listening to the panel. I think we learned a lot today. I have an awful lot of alarm bells that are ringing right now. There’s the ozone standard with no visible means of support. It appears that whenever the EPA has departed from scientific recommendations it has done it on behalf of industry. In contrast to Dr. Rice, Robert Shatner, an employee of ExxonMobil, James Klonig, Dale Thickles. I have to applaud Dr. Gray for his ability to say completely preposterous things with a straight face. It’s a skill but not what we want. We stand adjourned.

The only person under Administrator Johnson with official authority over the regional administrators is Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock. As his EPA biography states, “From 2001 until August 2005, Mr. Peacock served as an Associate Director at the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB).” There, he worked under OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) administrator John Graham, described by OMBWatch as “The man behind the curtain.” While at OMB, Peacock created the Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a complex assessment system by which the OMB exerts authority over every action of Executive Branch agencies, including the EPA. EPA staff scientists in regional offices surveyed by the Union of Concerned Scientists pointed directly at the OMB and Marcus Peacock as responsible for political interference. Here are just a few of the comments:

And although the administration chose Steve Johnson (a career scientist) as EPA Administrator, they sent Graham henchman Marcus Peacock over to keep a close eye on EPA as Deputy Administrator.

Control the power of OMB to a reasonable level – OMB does more to waste time and taxpayer dollars than any other organization in the government.

Further, the influence of other agencies, particularly OMB significantly affects the actions of specific individual program offices, which amounts to direct oversight of almost everything EPA does.

The current Administrator is a puppet operated by CEQ and OMB.

The official who called Gade’s performance “outstanding” and then gave her the ultimatum is most likely Assistant Administrator Luis Luna, who runs the Office of Administration and Resources Management, or his subordinate Kenneth Venuto, Director of the Office of Human Resources. When Luna was sworn into his post on May 2, 2005, Johnson said, “This office touches the work of every EPA employee.” Luna is responsible for outsourcing nearly five percent of the EPA workforce. A Cuban emigré, Luna has worked on the Hill and in various executive branch agencies for decades. Most notably he was a top aide and the campaign manager for Rep. Bob Bauman (R-MD), the chairman of the American Conservative Union who was voted out of office after a sex scandal involving an underage boy. Luna ran a failed campaign to take Bauman’s seat in the 1990 Republican primary. His wife, Bonnie Luna, was a delegate for George W. Bush at the 2000 Republican National Convention. But official responsibility lies with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. EPA press secretary Jonathan Shradar told Gristmill’s Kate Sheppard that Johnson “made the decision.” His statement:

This is a role that serves at pleasure of the administration, and [EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson] makes the decision of keeping people in place, and he made the decision. It’s a politically appointed position, just like mine. We have the expectation that we’re here to do a job, and we serve at the pleasure of the president, or in this case the pleasure of the administrator.

As Crooks and Liars noted during in 2007, the “pleasure of the president” was a Bush administration talking point during the U.S. Attorney scandal.

Sen. Whitehouse’s full remarks on politics at EPA, as prepared for delivery:

Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, for much of last year, the Senate Judiciary Committee was engaged in a troubling inquiry. We were trying to determine whether the Bush administration had fired several United States Attorneys for political reasons – because they were not “loyal Bushies.”

That inquiry continues. But over its course, the incompetence and misjudgments it uncovered cost a number of Justice Department officials their jobs – including former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who made clear that he put loyalty to the President before the faithful exercise of his office. It also cost this proud Department the morale of its staff and the trust of the American people, who were left to wonder whether federal prosecutions in this country arose out of the pursuit of justice or the pursuit of political advantage.

This morning, we awoke to the news that the Environmental Protection Agency’s regional administrator for the Midwest, Mary Gade, was forced to resign in the midst of a heated debate over dioxin contamination in waters near Michigan. According to a report by the Chicago Tribune, Ms. Gade invoked emergency powers last year to force Dow Chemical, headquartered in Michigan, to clean up several areas saturated with the toxic chemical, a dangerous carcinogen which was a byproduct of Agent Orange.

She later broke off negotiations with the company on a more comprehensive cleanup, citing concerns that Dow had been reluctant to take steps to protect health and wildlife. At that point, the Tribune’s report says, the company asked EPA officials in Washington to intervene, though Dow said yesterday it had nothing to do with Ms. Gade’s dismissal. The paper wrote Ms. Gade said that high-ranking EPA officials “repeatedly questioned her aggressive action against Dow.” It quoted Ms. Gade as saying: “There is no question this is about Dow.”

We do not yet know all the details of Ms. Gade’s firing, or everything that may have gone on between EPA and Dow Chemical. But from all we have heard and seen, Mary Gade’s story seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.

Last year, we learned that this administration would not hesitate to fire federal prosecutors who didn’t toe the party line. Today, it seems that the Bush administration has once again to remove a highly-qualified and well-regarded official whose only misstep, it appears, was to disagree with her political bosses.

Unfortunately, Mr. President, the story of Mary Gade is not only a distressing signal that the Bush administration may again be making hiring and firing decisions based on political loyalty. This is also just the latest in a growing pile of evidence of a troubling and destructive force at work within our government, one with serious consequences for our environment, our natural resources, and our public health.

We’ve always known that the Bush Administration was no friend to our environment. Over and over again for seven long years, this administration has put forward, under false flags, policies that would do great harm to the environment. From a Clear Skies initiative that would increase air pollution, to a national energy policy written by oil industry lobbyists, the Bush approach to environmental protection has been Orwellian.

That pattern continues even to this day. Not long ago, President Bush stood in the White House Rose Garden and announced what his administration characterized as a new strategy to address climate change. With Americans all over this country crying out for a bold, visionary plan to tackle the threat of global warming, a problem that threatens to engulf this nation and the entire world within generations if nothing is done, President Bush’s proposal was neither “new” nor a “strategy.”

Instead, the President announced what he called “a new national goal:” voluntary action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. Let me say that again: voluntary action to reduce emissions by 2025.

Mr. President, there are a couple of problems with that approach. First: the President’s so-called strategy would allow greenhouse gas emissions to continue to rise for another 17 years – even though overwhelming scientific evidence indicates that unless we take immediate action to cut global warming pollutants, we might be too late to prevent the most serious impacts of global climate change.

Second: President Bush offered no initiatives that might reduce emissions now or in the future, and made clear that on his watch, the United States Government will never require polluters to make such reductions. But as every American not working in the Bush administration understands, voluntary action, without strength of will or force of law, simply isn’t enough to tackle the magnitude of this problem.

And finally, even as the President announced this empty, so-called renewed commitment to fighting global warming, his administration reiterated that it will oppose a specific, detailed plan for addressing the climate change problem that the Senate will likely take up after the Memorial Day recess – the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act.

This trifecta would merely be laughable, were the situation not so serious. And there is always the distasteful possibility, given this administration’s long and destructive history of disregard for environmental concerns, that this is a stalking horse, intended to prevent real progress on climate change; a way to leave this problem, like so many others, for the next President to solve.

Regrettably, the President’s announcement is also a stunning failure of leadership in a world community that is quickly growing unaccustomed to American leadership.

* * *

Mr. President, we’ve known for a long time that politics of special interests is at the bottom of this, and that the Bush White House has repeatedly interfered with the decision-making process at the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, in thrall to the checkbooks of the oil companies, the gas companies, the chemical companies, the timber companies, the coal companies, and the auto companies.

A couple of weeks ago, we saw new evidence of how deeply this corrosive political influence has seeped within EPA – the primary federal agency charged with protecting our environment and public health. A report issued on April 23 by the Union of Concerned Scientists, entitled “Interference at the EPA,” is a scathing indictment of the decision-making process at EPA from those who know it best: the agency’s career scientists. The report consisted largely of a survey of EPA scientists and found that 60 percent of those surveyed had personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years. The report documents, among many other things, that many EPA scientists have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter information from EPA science documents, or have had their work edited in a manner that resulted in changes to their scientific findings. The survey also revealed that EPA scientists have often objected to, or resigned or removed themselves from, EPA projects because of pressure to change scientific findings. Mr. President, the conclusion could not be clearer: EPA is an agency in crisis.

Once upon a time, anyone working at EPA could be proud of their agency’s reputation as the international gold standard in the area of environmental protection. Indeed, for most of its 40-year history, all Americans could place their trust EPA’s independent, science-based leadership in safeguarding our natural resources and our public health. In a 1970 press release setting forth the agency’s mission, its first administrator, William Ruckelshaus, stated EPA’s role unequivocally. I quote:

“EPA is an independent agency. It has no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.”

Administrator Ruckelshaus was a Republican, appointed by President Nixon. Yet both he and the President who appointed him intended EPA to be immune from political pressure, to be guided by the twin lodestars of law and science in discharging that “critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.”

However, in recent years and especially during the tenure of Administrator Johnson, we have seen EPA’s leadership, in cahoots with its White House allies, despoil these basic principles of independence and scientific integrity. Here are only a few examples from the long bill of particulars that indicts the leadership of this once-vaunted agency:

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has falsified data and fabricated results of studies regarding the safety of the air around the site of the collapse of the World Trade Center on September 11th.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has selectively edited government reports, including the EPA’s 2003 Report on the Environment, to support uncertainty in climate change science, placing the imprimatur of the government of the United States of America on fringe views soundly rejected by essentially the entire world scientific community.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has routinely tampered with regulatory and scientific processes to achieve results sought by industry, at the expense of our public health and environment. For example, in 2004, EPA allowed North Dakota to alter the way it measured air quality, to bring Theodore Roosevelt National Park into compliance with air quality standards without actually reducing pollution.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has hidden, suppressed, and delayed the release of scientific findings in order to affect the impacts of EPA decisions, as in the case of a 2002 report on the effects of mercury on children’s health that EPA delayed for nine months and released only after it was leaked to the media.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has disregarded legally mandated scientific and administrative procedures, as in the case of the agency’s failure to abide by the Supreme Court’s recent decision on regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has stacked the EPA’s leadership and its advisory committees with industry allies, removing the respected scientists who argued for stronger public protections. A prime example of this is the removal, at the request of the industry lobbying group the American Chemistry Council, of toxicologist Deborah Rice from an EPA toxics advisory committee. Dr. Rice had argued for more stringent EPA standards for regulating certain chemicals used in commercially available plastics products. Not only was Dr. Rice removed the panel in a particularly Orwellian maneuver, but the fact that Dr. Rice had ever been on the panel was stricken from the panel’s records.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has ignored the recommendations of career staff and scientists when they collided with White House political imperatives, as in the case of the agency’s decision on the so-called California wavier.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has reduced enforcement of environmental regulations by opening fewer criminal investigations and filing fewer lawsuits against corporate polluters.

The George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has not only failed to protect, but sought reprisals against, agency employees who pointed out problems, reported legal violations, and attempted to correct factual misrepresentations made by their superiors. Amazingly, the EPA’s office of general counsel has invoked the doctrine of sovereign immunity against whistleblowers suing the agency because of actions taken by the agency in reprisal for whistleblowing activity.

And the George Bush Environmental Protection Agency has had its lawyering literally mocked by U.S. appellate courts—which in one case, condemned EPA’s defense of its regulation as possible “only in a Humpty-Dumpty world,” and in another case, accused the agency of “deploying the logic of the Queen of Hearts” from Alice in Wonderland in its interpretation of the law.

It makes one’s skin crawl to see the ways in which EPA’s leadership under the Bush Administration has put the interests of big business CEOs and lobbyists before the health and welfare of our environment and the American people.

The consequences of this are dire.

First, in a world that presents complex challenges to our public health, our environment, and our national security, the elevation of corporate interests over independent, science-based decision-making threatens America’s ability to respond effectively, and to provide the kind of leadership that the world expects and the American people deserve.

Second, the Administration’s conduct has demoralized EPA’s professional workforce – the scientists, lawyers, and regulatory experts to whom EPA owes its reputation as a champion of environmental protection and who, time and time again during this Administration, have seen their expert counsel set aside in favor of a partisan political agenda.

Third, President Bush and this Administration have compromised the faith of the American people in the integrity of their government. The President’s eagerness to do the bidding of the special interests and the Administrator’s willingness to kowtow to the White House, to the detriment of sound public policy, only confirm what too many in this country most fear: that the United States of America is no longer governed by and for the people. When policy is made for special interests and not for the public good, America is left weaker. No matter our partisan or ideological standings, I hope that no one in this room would want to do such a thing to this great country.

The Bush Administration has done lasting harm to our environment and the confidence of the American people. Next Wednesday, May 7th, at 9:30 a.m., I will join Senator Barbara Boxer, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for an oversight hearing to look into the many actions by this Bush Administration, and its EPA Administrator, which seem to be so badly at odds with the recommendations of the agency’s scientists and the best interests of the American people.

Chairman Boxer has been dogged in her pursuit of the truth behind the machinations of EPA’s leadership and the Bush White House, and her leadership will be critical as we try to get to the bottom of this. We plan to ask tough questions – and we expect honest answers – because the American people deserve an Environmental Protection Agency that lives up to its name.

10:00 Boxer The levels set in IRIS are used for most EPA regulatory programs and many state programs. The level set for arsenic in water and benzene in air went through IRIS. Early in the Bush administration, they acted to bring OMB in the process. Administrator Johnson made changing IRIS a high priority. Noone can explain to me where there is room for politics when you’re determining the health of the American people. Instead of having scientists at EPA deciding, we now have contractors effectively at the table. The entire process is kept secret. Here’s the irony: this administration has no end in sight for funding for the DoD. Isn’t it ironic that they are derailing the census of toxic chemicals. Similarly GAO found delays in risk assessments of formaldehyde. Scientists told our committee staff the process was delayed and people continued to be exposed.

Scientists reported, “De facto, EPA can’t go ahead without DoD and White House sign-off.”

The role of independent scientists at EPA must be restored.

10:10 Inhofe The witness invited runs the TSCA program, not the IRIS program. This GAO report was distributed on Friday. But it was completed on March 7, and then embargoed. My concern is that this hearing seems to be set up as a gotcha hearing. If the chairman were truly concerned about oversight, she would have shared the report with the minority and invited the right administrator. I believe there should be oversight of the ethanol program, which has raised food prices and caused riots. We should be concerned about this diversion from fuel to food.

10:13 Boxer We did tell your staff IRIS was an important part. We wanted Administrator Johnson. We think this is bigger than the IRIS program. I don’t mind that you are unhappy with me. What’s important is the bottom line. This is a scandal, frankly. Our families are being put at risk because politics has entered the process.

10:15 Inhofe I didn’t attack you on this. I think if we ask for an embargo we should share with each other.

10:15 Lautenberg How nice it is to start this spring day with a discussion not of the issues, but the process. While bisphenol-A is being developed, the EPA did nothing. They were silent. Out of the 80,000 chemicals used now, the EPA has only tested 200. It’s unacceptable. I refuse to let my grandchildren to become the new canaries in the coalmine. I will soon introduce a new version of the Kid Safe Chemical Act. This legislation would direct the EPA to make sure every chemical is safe before they end up in products. We do this with pesticides and pharmaceuticals already. It seems to make sense to do that with industrial chemicals as well.

10:21 Barrasso There is nothing we would not provide for our children. The question we should ask is, has the chemical industry helped improve the lives of our children? Is TSCA perfect? No. Could it be improved? Perhaps. Can it be better implemented? Certainly… PVC is used in prosthetics.

10:27 Boxer We’re talking about protective standards in our water and our air, not in prosthetics.

10:28 Barrasso The plastics that I’ve seen use chemicals.

Boxer We’re not talking about banning them, we’re talking about regulating them. Nothing that you said I object to. I’m saying we need to control them when scientists say they cause birth defects, when they cause cancer.

10:29 Whitehouse We have 80,000 chemicals to which American families are exposed, very few of which are tested.

10:31 Craig We have to talk about the role of chemicals in society. I’m going to err on the side of a doctor, not a politician—Barrasso. Our history is replete with the lack of knowledge and understanding with respect to the pollution of chemicals in our society. We’re talking about jobs.

10:36 Boxer It is not our job to keep the chemical industry at the table. It might be in another committee. When it comes to the profitability of the chemical industry, let them do that in the Commerce Committee. Dr. Barrasso is an orthopedic surgeon. On this panel we will have a pediatrician and an ob/gyn. The people who know about this are the experts. All this “confusion” about this hearing. The title of this hearing is “Oversight of EPA Toxic Chemical Policies.” Policies. We can talk about TSCA, we can talk about IRIS. I’m a little stunned that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle aren’t working with us. There’s a train leaving the station with Admin Johnson and Bush’s OMB on it trying to derail a very important program to keep our children safe.

10:39 Klobuchar I see our role as oversight of enforcement. I’m not just a mother but also a prosecutor. If you don’t have the enforcement angle, then we’re not doing our job, and Congress has to come in. I come at this not naively, but look at these toys. Our Consumer Product Safety Commission wasn’t looking at these toys. I was shocked to read the testimony of Ms. Gellert.

10:58 Boxer You’re getting tainted information, and that’s a problem.

11:00 Gulliford It’s important for us to prioritize chemicals.

Barrasso So the chemical industry doesn’t always agree with you.

Gulliford Our job is to take industry information.

Boxer The progress on lead was made under the old rules.

11:01 Whitehouse The carveout is for other federal agencies. Everyone else has to be public. You go to the White House and you can stick any comments in. Isn’t that a legitimate concern?

Gulliford I don’t believe that would happen.

Whitehouse What prevents the OMB from inserting political influence?

Gulliford You’re making the assumption OMB is political.

Whitehouse We generally try to prevent problems. If you leave a door open to that, it’s not adequate to say, “Well, we can’t prove it’s used for that.”

Gulliford The final products of the IRIS process are reviewed by third-parties. It’s a very transparent process.

11:06 Boxer I just want to say, you’re a very good witness. GAO said it’s a black box. It is secret. Sen. Whitehouse is just reiterating what we know is the truth.

11:07 Craig I’m trying to understand the process because it seems to be the process that is under attack, not the outcome. How many premanufacturing notices has the EPA received versus notices to commence?

11:25 Whitehouse There’s nothing in the process that would prevent or disclose whether a polluter made campaign contributions, was a Pioneer or whatever, and then went to the OMB to influence this process.

Stephenson That’s our fear.

Boxer The whole spirit of this country is openness and trusting citizens with information. Noone should be in that room in the early risk assessment process except the scientists and those concerned with public health. When I go home, I hear all the time about the fears of my constituents. I wish I could tell them we’ve done a stellar job. We haven’t. This process will institutionalize this nightmare. This is a secret process. It’s a nightmare.