« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Sen. Whitehouse Wars against Johnson's "Gobbledygook"
WARNING: Readers with an impatience for administration evasiveness should not watch this video.
EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson appears to be a student of the Alberto Gonzales School of Congressional Testimony, the main teaching of which is to never answer a question "yes" or "no." And at the first sign of trouble, you'd better spiral into minutiae and hope the Senator's time runs out.
The first time around, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) didn't know quite what he was up against. But as someone who went toe to toe with the Dean of Evasion himself, and as a former prosecutor, he was ready for round two.
His line of questioning was as follows: his first questions had established that the EPA typically has a decision process with four steps. They were: 1) a briefing on the underlying issues, 2) an analysis of the various options, 3) a consolidated recommendation from the staff on what the decision should be, and 4) Johnson's final decision. Whitehouse, after a typically maddening Johnson interlude of clarification and detail recitation, got him to agree to this basic framework. And he got him to agree that with the California decision, Johnson had not received a consolidated staff recommendation.
Then he tried to plunge forward. But Johnson repeatedly muddled and equivocated, revising that basic framework and generally doing everything he could to prevent Whitehouse from driving to his conclusion. Finally, after reminding Johnson that he was under oath (the second time that happened today), Whitehouse, out of time and patience, concluded:
What I am hearing is that there typically is a consolidated recommendation that comes from the staff. Which makes sense.…. that would seem to be the logical way to proceed.And you have said that you didn’t do that in this case, and given how peculiar the ultimate decision is, it raises the suggestion that there has been a manipulation of the agency process in this case in order to allow you to make a decision that is neither supported by the facts, nor by the law, nor by your staff’s recommendation.
It’s a serious matter. So I will hope you will give me a real answer to it and not just lots of gobbledygook about administrative law, which I’m pretty familiar with. I have a specific question.
So it seems that Whitehouse will have to wait for a written answer from Johnson -- which I'm sure will be just as crystal clear.
Update: Here's the transcript:
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Well, the process that led to this, let me go back to that discussion we were having. You said that is is typical in your agency for there to be essentially four steps through this process: one, a process of briefing; second, a(n) options analysis with all the options reviewed and evaluated by your staff; third, a consolidated recommendation from your staff as to the decision that they recommend that you make; and finally, your decision. Correct?MR. JOHNSON: Again, there are a lot of important sub-steps in that, such as here's the basis, we've got --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Was anything that I said wrong?
MR. JOHNSON: No, no. Let me just add to that, and add to that that a very important step --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, I'd like to get to some questions, so I don't want you to slow-walk me through this by going into the minutiae of administrative procedure, if you don't mind.
MR. JOHNSON: Well --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Is it correct that those are the four major elements that lead to your decisions?
MR. JOHNSON: You missed one, another element, and that is, evaluating -- summarizing and evaluating the notice and comment, the comments that came in.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Okay. Understood. Was there a consolidated recommendation made by your staff on this waiver question?
MR. JOHNSON: My -- as I recall, there was a series of --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: It's a yes-or-no question.
MR. JOHNSON: I don't recall that there was a consolidated recommendation in the briefing papers.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Why, if it is typical in your agency for there to be a consolidated recommendation made by the staff, was there not a consolidated recommendation made by the staff on this particular question?
MR. JOHNSON: I thought I just answered the question by saying that I receive a wide range of briefings and option selections. Sometimes there's --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: That's a different thing. That's the options analysis you talked about.
MR. JOHNSON: -- a consolidated recommendation -- sometimes there's a consolidated recommendation, sometimes there's not.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: So it's not typical. I mean, you're telling me two things. You're saying that it's -- you just agreed with me -- and by the way, you are under oath. You just agreed with me that one of the key steps here was the consolidated recommendation by the staff. You just agreed with me that it was typical, that that was the standard process. Now you're saying, well, maybe sometimes, maybe not. You can't have it both ways.
What is the process --
MR. JOHNSON: Let me -- then let me --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: -- for your agency, which is a big agency and runs with procedures?
MR. JOHNSON: Then let me correct the record so that it's clear. It begins with a notice and comment process. Then the staff --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Focus on the consolidated recommendation piece.
MR. JOHNSON: Again, there sometimes are consolidated recommendations, and those consolidated recommendations are in the form of here are the five options that we believe are legally defensible. Sometimes those consolidated recommendations are here is our recommendation.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: What's the difference?
MR. JOHNSON: And sometimes it's a range, sometimes it's --
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Yeah, but who decides that they're going to give you just the options analysis versus a consolidated staff recommendation?
MR. JOHNSON: Again, I leave it up to the head of the particular office that is evaluating the particular petition or regulation or whatever.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: Isn't it just a matter of basic administrative discipline, with a multi-division agency like yours, to force them to the exercise of trying to get to a consolidated agency recommendation before you're asked to make a decision? This a basic --
MR. JOHNSON: Again, my point is, the consolidated agency recommendation might include one option or it might include three options, might include five options.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: So the options analysis and the consolidated recommendation are the same thing now? We've just been through how they're separate steps; now you're saying that they're the same thing?
MR. JOHNSON: I'd be happy to be very clear for the record, because it's clear that -- you seem, to my perspective, to be confused on the steps. So I'd be happy to for the record.
SEN. WHITEHOUSE: I think it would be important to clarify very specifically what the typical steps are for your agency in presenting a matter to you for a decision, typically, and compare that to how that was done in this case, because what I'm hearing is that there typically is a consolidated recommendation that comes from the staff -- which make sense.
That is the way administrative agencies should ordinarily operate. And it is, in fact, to some degree, an administrator's responsibility to try to force his staff to come to a consolidated recommendation. That would seem to be the logical way to proceed. And you have said that you didn't do that in this case.
And given how peculiar the ultimate decision is, it raises the suggestion that there has been a manipulation of the agency process in this case in order to allow you to make a decision that is neither supported by the facts nor by the law nor by your own staff's recommendation.
It's a serious matter, and so I hope you'll give me a real answer to it and not just lots of, you know, gobbledygook about administrative law, which I'm pretty familiar with. I have a specific question, and I think I've made it pretty clear. And I'd like to make that for the record, so I don't take any further time.
Comments (15)
Roberta wrote on January 24, 2008 4:38 PM:I think Johnson is way better at evasiveness and obfuscation than Gonzales was, for the primary reason that Johnson's face, manner, and voice communicate superiority over his questioners. He treats the senators as if they are dense students who simply can't understand how important Johnson is and that the intricacies of his position are beyond them. He keeps it less than a sneer as he responds, but his condescension is unmistakable.
Than any of these senators can keep their tempers is amazing to me.
Is Johnson the product of an intensive training program that teaches this kind of evasion and obfuscation, or is he emblematic of cognitive dissonance that lets him truly believe that he has done right and is right, in spite of any evidence presented to him?
Letting myself hate only hurts me, but I can't help but hate each and every one of these people in the Bush Administration. They do more harm every day, and it's going to continue until the last one of them is pulled from his position, fingernails gouging his desk, outraged at his treatment because of his feeling of entitlement.
mo2 wrote on January 24, 2008 4:52 PM:I wonder if someone from the OVP's office wrote Johnson's press release. I wish a Senator would ask him who helped write it, and who proofed it before he read it on tv.
correctnotright wrote on January 24, 2008 4:56 PM:I wonder if republicans have to go to a school of stalling and obfuscation before being appointed to a executive branch position by this WH.
Senator Whitehouse did a nice job of:
1. Setting up the parameters for how the EPA is supposed to work
2. Cutting off Johnson as he tried to "explain" the unnecessary details and waste time
3. summarizing how this was not normal operating procedure - implying that this was a political decision from the top and not a substanative decision based on actual facts or recommendations.
If I worked at the EPA and my advice and work was ignored like this - I would be steaming mad!
This is the same mode of operation used in the FDA for stalling plan B, used for the global warming statments by the Interior Dept. and throughout the Bush WH. Ignore the science - give me the political decision from the WH - damn the people.
melior wrote on January 24, 2008 5:07 PM:I'm not sure if it's in the cards, but it would be great to see Sen. Whitehouse get a chance to grill the department head that Johnson referred to about the same questions.
sabatia wrote on January 24, 2008 6:21 PM:Yow! Another complete dbag. Running our nation! I recently changed my alliegence from Hillary to Obama because I didn't like her tactics within "Da Family". But what I liked about her was that she has the partisanship and wonkishness to take the necessary steps to rid our government of these destructive partisan Republicans. My feelings seeing this and the Justice Dept. and the Corp for Public Broadcasting and FEMA and NASA and every agency run by the crop of Republicans make me so angry I find myself depersonalizing them, making them into cockroaches and slimy grubs. Not a good thing.
Dee Illuminati wrote on January 24, 2008 7:01 PM:I saw a segment on CNN discussing "Green Collar Jobs" and the buzz that was being generated. Now I want to say that I don't buy the idea that everybody will run their autos on granolla bars, or french fry vat oil, but I do know that there is a wind turbine at the Bush Kennebunkport home, and that solar panels do meet ROI efficiency in five years or less. As I listened I also reflected that electric power steering, just removing the belts, realizes 2mpg efficiency, that meeting the CA standards are very attainable, and I have to wonder why this guy was so tone deaf to the changes in the world around us.
I have some info at my blog about the Q&A between DAVOS on Youtube, and was surprised to see Renault the french car dealer who has an agreement to make electric cars for Israel, a good model considering their driving habits, and his CEO response at DAVOS, the fact that he is 'tuned in' to an emerging demand.
And then I reflected that the USA is in a paradigmn that is becoming outdated and stale, top down inefficient, and that the move by CA and the States was like the satellite states of the Soviet Union in the 90's.
Is green collar jobs a panacea? No they are not. But these changes are necessary and the real demand is out there, that is why Toyotta is number one globally and the US auto makers cannot be bailed out by soviet style economic intervention.
So really I felt sort of sorry for the guy, he is trapped in an older set of beliefs, part of world that is changing, and he is floundering against that change. The only time he sweated was when he was asked for emails.
The fact that this guy behaved the way he did, doesnt change the fact that our world is seeking other models of commerce and behavior. If anything this was a hearing of an iconic discussion where the last tired arguments of an outdated agenda and political belief were heard.
Tomorrow goes to the Renault's, the Tatta's the answers to the challenges in a constantly evolving world. The status quo smug smile was less irritating than fascinating. The CEO of Renault sees opportunity, why was this guy different? I guess that was his qalifications for the job, certainly no Christy Todd Whitmann.
(my apolgees for the repost I just think it is worth mentioning)
moondancer wrote on January 24, 2008 7:34 PM:Johnson has the cockiness of a reptile that knows that bush/cheney have his back. It's late in the fourth quarter and all he has to do is run out the clock. Like every single bush lackey I've seen testify, he is an ideologue putting bush values over the country or the constitution
dewey wrote on January 24, 2008 8:12 PM:This just reinforces the view of bushs' mean streak. He knows this is wrong. He knows it will be law 2 weeks after he's gone. He just wants to give a parting FU to some of his enemies.
This efeminine minion is despicable. Don't you want to grab his my his fat, shiny, white jowl and push his face in a vat of oil spill sludge? I sure do.
Whitehouse has become one of the most tenacious and feared Senators to come across on the stand.
Bob in KC wrote on January 24, 2008 10:07 PM:Feel sorry for Johnson? sheeesh........
Spare me!
dewey, I agree with you 100%. Too bad Whitehouse isn't Majority Leader, or even Committee Chair. One can hope, though.
But, watch out, some folks in a back room somewhere are probably already
Roberta wrote on January 24, 2008 11:18 PM:trying to dig up s**t on him, because he is so damn GOOD!
I'm watching the replay of the hearings, and I noted something during the questioning by Sen. Benjamin Cardin, D-MD, who was trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the degree to which personal beliefs affected Johnson's decision (rather than merely technical info).
Johnson acknowledged that we need a "global solution" for global warning. But he added "at a minimum a national solution."
"At a minimum." So how, then, is California's (and now 15 other states') waiver counter to his own assertion that a national assertion is a "minimum"?
On another post, a reader noted that Johnson used to be a good, fair employee at the EPA. I wonder this about most of Bush's people, but I ask myself again, "How much do they get to compensate for selling their souls?"
Roberta wrote on January 24, 2008 11:20 PM:Oh, and by the way. It's likely obvious to everyone, but Inhofe is such a tool. It's a wonder his face doesn't have brown streaks all over it.
will o dwisp wrote on January 25, 2008 12:34 AM:I keep waiting for committee members to start calling this hack on his haughty additude. I cannot imagine going before a commitee with such a shamelessly scornful additude. The whole administration generally acts like a bunch of haughty Nazis. We really have got to start putting these people in thier places during hearings. Why do we put up with this crap?
republicanSScareme wrote on January 25, 2008 2:38 AM:Sen. Whitehouse did a admirable job of raking this tinhorn over the coals. It looks like more and more criminal indictments are on the way.
Lawyer Up, Cowboys!
Rick Massimo wrote on January 25, 2008 1:41 PM:It's time for the Senators to cut through this crap. My suggestion? Something along the lines of: "Mr. Johnson, this is not a court of law. You do not have the presumption of innocence here. You obviously picked money for corporations over the environment, which is your charge, thus proving you unfit for your job. You have five minutes to defend yourself, or explain where your orders came from."
"Uh - uh - splutter ..."
"4:55."
noshrub wrote on January 27, 2008 3:30 PM:Nice job by Sen. Whitehouse. He never lets me down.