Posted by
Gar on Monday, July 20, 2009 9:00:02 PM
Congressman Sensenbrenners call for transparency amid growing obfuscation and secrecy is no better than urinating into the wind.
The list of transperancy violations at EPA is as long as a wild python in the Okeefonokee Swamp in the Everglades.
But the call for transparency by EPA and the Whitehouse? What's the guy thinking? The Whitehouse group as a whole are nothing but exceedingly accomplished liars and charlatans.
The only fools who bought the "transparency" thingie were just two groups, the folks who play the race card and those who buy into the race card. Bammy lies to his audience two or three times (or more) every time he speaks and no one calls him on it, so what does Sensenbrenner think is going to happen with the letter he wrote (below)
Is Sensenbreenner thinking a revelation and/or epiphany will occur and all of us will wake up, come to our senses and boot the impostor POTUS out tomorrow?
Old hat, old news and No Hope for a Change in the fortunes of the nation.
Time to take to the streets?
July 8, 2009
The Honorable Edward Markey
Chairman, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Markey:
During her confirmation hearing, Administrator Jackson promised “overwhelming
transparency.” She said, “[a]s Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the
environmental rises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: Science-based policies and
programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Notwithstanding this
promise, EPA has conducted itself under an unprecedented veil of secrecy.
I initially raised these concerns in a letter to you and Congressman Towns dated June 9,
2009.1 In that letter I cited two incidents. First, Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), revealed that the White House had held a series of secret meetings as
they were crafting the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Nichols
admitted that there was a deliberate “vow of silence” surrounding the negotiations with the
White House on vehicle fuel standards.2 According to Nichols, “[Carol] Browner [Assistant to
the President for Energy and Climate Change] quietly orchestrated private discussions from the
White House with auto industry officials.” Negotiators were instructed to “put nothing in
writing, ever.” Clearly, Browner’s actions were intended to leave little to no documentation of
the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.
The second issue raised in the previous letter related to EPA’s proposed endangerment
finding. An official from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned EPA in an
interagency memo that “[m]aking a decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is
likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S.
economy, including small businesses and small communities.”3 According to Administration
sources, these warning were dismissed, in part, because they originated from “a Bush
Holdover.”4 In fact, the “holdover” was a career civil servant hired by the Clinton
Administration.
1 Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner and Darrel Issa to the Honorable Edolphus Towns and
Edward Markey (June 9, 2009).
2 Colin Sullivan, Vow of Silence Key to White House-California Fuel Economy Talks, New York Times,
May 20, 2009.
3 Ian Talley, OMB Memo: Serious Impact Likely from EPA CO2 Rules, Dow Jones Newswire, May 11,
2009, available at http://www.djnewsplus.com/article_ss/SB124206897993062889.html?param=gn&
4 Ian Talley, EPA Chief Says CO2 Finding May Not ‘Mean Regulation,’ Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2009.
I am again raising concerns regarding the transparency of EPA’s process in light of new
evidence of suppression at EPA. In a series of emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, the Director of
EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) expressly refused to include
relevant scientific evidence in the official record because, in his view, the administration had
already reached its conclusion regarding the endangerment finding.
On March 16, a senior analyst with EPA wrote to his office director to request that his
comments be included in EPA’s record. The analyst wrote:
I believe my comments are valid, significant, and contain references to significant new
research since the cut-off for IPCC and CCSP inputs. They are significant because they
present information critical to the justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed
endangerment finding. They are valid because they explain much of the observational data
that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.
In response, the director refused to forward the analyst’s comments, not because he questioned
their scientific merits, but because “[t]he administrator and administration has decided to move
forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this
decision.”5
The director then sent a follow-up email, forbidding the analyst from continuing his
work: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and
subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no
research etc.”
As it did with the OMB memo, EPA attacked the analyst’s credibility. In response to
publication of the above emails, EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy reiterated EPA’s now empty
pledge of transparency and said, “[i]n this instance, certain opinions were expressed by an
individual who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.”6
In fact, the analyst is a 38-year EPA employee with a scientific background, but
regardless, EPA’s response ignores the ultimate problem. NCEE’s director did not dismiss the
analyst’s opinions because of his scientific background or because of the merits of his study, the
director expressly refused to forward his opinion because they did not support the conclusions
that EPA had already reached.
This past December, President Obama said, “[p]romoting science isn’t just about
providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts
and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what
our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient.”
5 Email from Office Director of EPA’s NCEE to Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE (March 17,
2009).
6 Robin Bravender, House GOP Accuses Admin of Suppressing EPA Staff on ‘endangerment' finding,’
E&ENews (June 25, 2009).
The email exchange documents a second instance in which EPA refused to consider
alternative internal opinions and delineates an agency culture set in a predetermined course. It
therefore raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed.
EPA has become an agency determined to silence inconvenient perspectives, but as
policymakers we must openly and honestly consider all reliable evidence.
I therefore respectfully request that we hold a hearing to investigate the lack of transparency at EPA. I am prepared to assist in any way necessary to help prepare for such a hearing.
Sincerely,
F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Ranking Member
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming