Committee Holds Hearing to Unjustly Attack EPA
(Washington, DC) – Today the Subcommittees on Oversight and Environment held a joint hearing titled, Destruction of Records at EPA – When Records Must Be Kept. The Republicans have been conducting a lengthy search for information regarding the alleged unlawful destruction of records at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Over the past three years, letters sent by Committee Chairman Smith, Congressman Darrell Issa, and Senator David Vitter, characterize the Agency as being intentionally unresponsive to Congressional information requests, and suggesting openly that the EPA has been engaged in clandestine dealings to further the Obama Administration’s environmental agenda.
Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said, “As someone who strongly believes in transparent government, I would certainly take issue with any government agency unlawfully destroying records. However, the title of today’s hearing, “Destruction of Records at EPA – When Records Must Be Kept,” makes it appear that we have reached a verdict before we have examined any evidence. Given that the EPA Inspector General is just beginning an investigation into this issue at the request of Chairman Smith, it would have been more prudent to wait until the investigation had something to report before holding this hearing.”
Democratic Members expressed their concern regarding wide-ranging and unsubstantiated accusations of EPA wrongdoing made by Dr. David Schnare, a former EPA employee and attorney who is tied to several organizations that have filed multiple controversial lawsuits and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests against EPA and other agencies.
Ranking Member of the Oversight Subcommittee Don Beyer (D-VA) said, "Dr. David Schnare's testimony today is concerning. His allegations against the EPA and Administrator Gina McCarthy are not supported by fact. This testimony jeopardizes the role of the agency protecting our environment, and clouds any real efforts to encourage transparency and proper record keeping within the federal government. We are sent here to do more than listen to inflammatory allegations and I am troubled by the testimony the Committee has provided us today."
Congressman Beyer attached to his statement four documents related to a 2012 lawsuit filed by Dr. Schnare against the EPA accusing the Agency, and its then-Administrator Lisa Jackson, which among other things claimed the EPA was using "secret gas chambers" to conduct these studies on airborne particulate matter. The lawsuit was dismissed.
Congresswoman Donna F. Edwards (D-MD) asked Dr. Schnare a series of questions about his failure to report what he describes as his own “legally deficient” responses to two FOIA requests while employed at EPA, and questioned why he did not report what he believed were efforts to obstruct his response to a FOIA response to the EPA’s Office of Inspector General of the agency or the State bar in Virginia or the District of Columbia, where he is licensed to practice as an attorney.
Yesterday, Chairman Smith issued a subpoena to the EPA for documents related to allegations of text and email messages being deleted at EPA. He was able to do so unilaterally because of changes to the Committee rules at the beginning of the 114th Congress.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “When the Committee adopted the new subpoena rules at the beginning of this Congress, the Chairman assured the Minority that when he issued a subpoena it would not come as a surprise. Yesterday we saw the first subpoena go out, and let me assure the Chairman that we were surprised.”
She continued, “The fact of the matter is that EPA was complying with the Committee’s request, consistent with their responsibility to try to protect the Administrator’s privacy regarding personal contact and billing information. This subpoena was thus entirely unnecessary from an oversight perspective. However, from a press release perspective, I imagine that issuing the subpoena before this hearing may be considered by some to be a clever move. But issuing a subpoena for press impact undermines the seriousness of the Chairman’s oversight work. That is not good for the Committee, the Congress, or the country.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article