« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Dem Senators Berate EPA Official
It's gotten to be pretty routine. An EPA official goes up to Capitol Hill and straight-facedly insists that the agency is all about transparency and science, and Democratic senators respond by calling it a lie.
But this morning, it wasn't EPA chief Stephen Johnson who made the trip. This time the EPA sent Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development George Gray instead. Why couldn't Johnson make it? Gray didn't seem sure, but explained to an angry Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that Johnson had been having back problems. In March, Boxer implied that Johnson had planned an official trip to Australia in order to avoid having to attend in Congressional hearings in April. Maybe all that flight time wasn't good for his back.
But the Democrats didn't hold up on Gray. Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Boxer went round and round with him, as he continued to insist that "transparency is key" to the EPA's decision process and that the administrator's decisions were based on science. Boxer was most direct, saying at the end of his testimony that Gray's insistence that only science had been considered "is a big lie.... You've tried to defend the indefensible, and you have failed as far as this senator is concerned."
Gray proved himself a fine substitute for Johnson, however. When the senators pressed him on why Johnson had gone along with the White House and overruled the recommendation of the agency's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee in setting a higher level for smog-forming ozone in the air, Gray wanted everyone to understand that it was "actually a very good example" of the "way in which the uncertainty of science plays an important role in decisions." Gray counseled that "science does not give us a single or precise answer."
But Whitehouse didn't seem to be buying it. "The people that you chose to be the experts unanimously supported this recommendation.... These were the best scientists in the country and you ignored them." Gray responded that Johnson hadn't "ignored" them -- he'd just come to a different conclusion. He did allow, however, that in addition to "scientific considerations," there had been "science policy considerations," which are a "part of moving the scientific process forward." But the EPA wouldn't discuss it's communications with the White House, he said, saying that it was important to keep "discussions with the rest of the federal family" private.













what now?
the federal government is a family now, whose discussions are kept privy from the american public?
see, i always thought it was government of the people, by the people, for the people. of the people denoting possession. as in, it's ours. so if we want to know something about it, it's ours to know, not the "federal family's" guarded secret.
May 7, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is Johnso still Administrator of the EPA?
Why is he not undergoing Impeachment hearings?
He's Lied.
He's broken just about every law governing the EPA. Why is he still in office?
WHY?
ITMFA
May 7, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
A family! Y'know, like the Sopranos!
May 7, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Require Johnson to produce a note from at least one doctor. If he doesn't, then it's contempt time.
May 7, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do these people have against science?
May 7, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree ... why isn't impeachment on the table? The guys a total joke
May 7, 2008 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
forget this contempt thing ... that's retarded too ... he has clearly shown that he is incapable of fulfilling the duties required of the position. Just impeach him ...
May 7, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
He didn't show and he didn't have an excuse. Contempt of Congress. They should start with that and work their way up to a subpoena if necessary.
The only reason the administration is keeping him there and letting him play these little games (he acts like a 5 year old) is to defend corporations against having to spend one red cent on curtailing their pollution.
May 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
So how come a one percent chance of something is enuf for us to launch a preemptive war, but absolute certainty is required for us to try to stop fouling our own nest?
May 8, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink