Conservatives are jumping up and down over a report by an EPA analyst expressing skepticism about climate change, which, they claim, was suppressed by agency brass because it didn't conform to Obama administration orthodoxy on global warming. The story has sparked explosive claims, on Fox News and other right-wing outlets, that the EPA censored scientific data for political reasons. And Monday, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) called for an outright criminal investigation into the matter.

But it's hard to blame EPA for not paying much attention to the study. And it's more than a little ironic that DC Republicans have chosen its author as their new standard-bearer in the defense of pure science against politics. Because the author, EPA veteran Al Carlin, is an economist, not a climate scientist. EPA says no one at the agency solicited the report. And Carlin appears to have taken up the global warming topic largely as a hobby on his own time. In fact, a NASA climatologist has called the report -- whose existence was first publicized last week by the industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) -- "a ragbag collection of un-peer reviewed web pages, an unhealthy dose of sunstroke, a dash of astrology and more cherries than you can poke a cocktail stick at."

Read more »

The Bush administration's record on the environment is so abysmal that even a former Bush EPA official had difficulty defending it today.

Environmentalists blasted the administration's policies at a hearing called by the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, convened to highlight Bush's use of midnight regulations -- proposals made in the waning days of a presidency when political consequences are minimal -- to ram through rule changes on behalf of business interests.

Then, Jeff Holmstead, the lone witness called by the GOP minority, was given a chance to speak.

Holmstead, once the head of the Air office at the EPA and now a lawyer at Bracewell & Giuliani, gamely attempted to defend his own record, touting an improvement in air quality in his opening statement. But hostile questioning put him on the defensive. The timing of the last-minute proposals, he said, was simply due to human responsiveness to deadlines. And as for global warming, other countries "have not achieved anything either."

Finally, Holmstead gave up. "Maybe we should have a little more polite discussion," he said.

Of the 39 rules proposed in the final days of the president's term, 20 pare back environmental restrictions. (ProPublica has a tally going here.)

Rep. Edward Markey (D-MA), the select committee chair, closed the meeting promising to "shine a light" on the Bush administration's activities.

"We are going to be on their case," he said. "We are going to be there every single minute."

F. Chase Hutto III, a senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney with a long history of promoting anti-environmental regulation policy, is a top choice for a post at the Energy Department, the Washington Post reports today.

Hutto, who is being considered for the position of assistant secretary for policy and international affairs, has been a contact within the administration for the oil and gas industry on energy and environmental issues.

The administration's controversial decision to delay action on regulating greenhouse gas emissions was shaped in part by Hutto.

From a July 11 article in the Washington Post:

Hutto, a former Cato Institute intern and Bush campaign volunteer during the Florida vote recount in 2000, whose grandfather patented at least seven piston inventions for the Ford Motor Company, has "an anti-regulatory philosophy and concern about what regulation means for the American way of life. He would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile," said the meeting participant.

Just hours after a federal judge shot down the White House's claim to sweeping immunity from Congressional oversight, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) fired off a round of letters renewing his demand for testimony from Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman sent a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding asking whether the two officials will agree to testify in light of today's ruling against the Bush administration's blanket claim of executive privilege.

The investigation at issue is the allegedly political firings of eight U.S. attorneys. The Senate committee issued subpoenas in June and July 2007 for Bolton and Rove to testify on Capitol Hill.

"Today's decision renders the grounds for Mr. Bolten and Mr. Rove's refusal to comply with the Committee's subpoenas moot," Leahy wrote in the letter to Fielding.

Leahy also sent a terse letter to Attorney General Michael Mukasey asking whether he planned to rescind the legal memos based on the theory of blanket executive privileged that the judge dismissed today.

Please advise me by no later than next Thursday, August 7, when you will withdraw the erroneous [Office of Legal Counsel] opinion from Stephen Bradbury relied upon by the White House to justify its non-compliance with congressional subpoenas since that opinion has been repudiated by the court.

In addition, please inform me whether the court's decision will cause you to re-evaluate your memos and those from [Office of Legal Counsel] in support of overbroad and unsubstantiated executive privilege claims not only in the U.S. Attorneys investigation, but also in other matters, like the claims used to block Congress from investigating warrantless wiretapping, the leak of the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame for political retribution, and White House interference in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision-making. Which of these do you now intend to withdraw?

Leahy sounds like he's asking for a complete surrender in this ongoing battle over White House officials' testimony. But there's a lot of litigation still to go in this case.

Democratic Senators from the Environment and Public Works Committee called for the resignation of EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, in a press release published this afternoon.

Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) was joined by committee members Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) in charging that Johnson had given "misleading testimony before Congress," "refused to cooperate" with Oversight investigations and had politicized decisions before the EPA.

From the EPW press release:

The senators asked Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey to investigate apparent contradictions between the sworn testimony of Administrator Johnson and the testimony of other sworn witnesses regarding the circumstances surrounding EPA's denial California's request for a waiver under the Clean Air Act to set strong standards for global warming emissions from vehicles.

Johnson has repeatedly refused to appear before Congressional committees, including the Senate Judiciary Committee, who canceled a hearing scheduled for tomorrow, July 30, after Johnson informed them he would not be coming.

When Johnson has testified, however, as he did in May before the House Oversight committee, he has often driven questioners to furious distraction in his refusal to answer questions, and his inability to recount events.

From the AP:

The Environmental Protection Agency is telling its pollution enforcement officials not to talk with congressional investigators, reporters and even the agency's own inspector general, according to an internal e-mail provided to The Associated Press.

The June 16 message instructs 11 managers in the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, the branch of the agency charged with making sure environmental laws are followed, to remind their staff members to keep quiet.

"If you are contacted directly by the IG's office or GAO requesting information of any kind ... please do not respond to questions or make any statements," reads the e-mail sent by Robbi Farrell, the division's chief of staff. Instead, staff members should forward inquiries to a designated EPA representative, the memo says.

As we mentioned yesterday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman called-off a hearing on the White House interference with EPA decision-making when EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson refused to testify.

Today, Leahy released a letter he sent to William A. Roderick the Deputy Inspector General of the EPA.

In it, Leahy requested Roderick examine the issues that would have been heard before the committee, as well as the applicability of the claim of executive privilege:

I ask you to investigate. Please include in your investigation: Whether EPA has complied with its responsibilities to provide information to Congress and the American people on environmental issues, including public health and other risks from global warming. Whether EPA's decision with respect to California's waiver from the Clean Air Act was made in accordance with the technical and legal conclusions of EPA's own staff or whether the White House improperly interfered with EPA decision-making. Whether Administrator Johnson's testimony to Congress regarding the California waiver decisions and other matters related to global warming was accurate and truthful. Finally, to the extent information has been withheld from Congress on the basis of a claim of executive privilege, please determine the factual basis for all claims of executive privilege.

So will the investigation take place The EPA Inspector General's office told TPMmuckraker, that they would "review the Chairman's request and reach out for discussion" in the near future.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, who has notoriously avoided congressional testimony, declined to testify to the Senate Judiciary Committee next week.

The hearing on the EPA's refusal to provide Congress with documents relating to the health risks of global warming was scheduled for July 30, but has now been cancelled by Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT).

"Administrator Johnson declined our invitation," said Chairman Leahy in a statement. "The letter we received from the EPA this week gave no reasons for his refusal to appear before the Committee."

This week the Senate Environment and Public Works Commitee, chaired by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) heard from EPA whistleblower Jason Burnett on the White House's interference with EPA decision making.

Leahy stated that he was a referring Johnson's refusal to testify to the EPA Inspector General. "Like Karl Rove's refusal to appear before the Judiciary Committee in response to a congressional subpoena, and Josh Bolten's refusal to appear to provide documents we subpoenaed," Leahy continued in his statement. "This administration follows. . . its own imperial executive style."

Thank goodness Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee John Conyers (D-MI) is holding a hearing on the "Bush Imperial Presidency" tomorrow.

The Bush Administration has rejected plans to regulate the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming, despite an EPA staff report that backed the idea.

The AP reports:

The White House on Thursday rejected EPA's conclusion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act "can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change." Instead, EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with climate change.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson released a 588-page federal notice (pdf) that included the EPA's "staff draft" in favor of regulation, but said it does not reflect the administration's policy.

To support that conclusion, Johnson included in the notice 95 pages of submissions from non-EPA federal officials who raised questions about any proposed regulation.

According to the Washington Post, a top White House concluded that concerns from those other federal officials prohibited reaching any firm decisions about regulation:

"The issues raised during interagency review are so significant that we have been unable to reach interagency consensus in a timely way, and as a result, this staff draft cannot be considered Administration policy or representative of the views of the Administration," [White House Office of Management and Budget Susan] Dudley wrote. "As reflected in these letters, there is strong disagreement with many of the legal, analytical, economic, science and policy interpretations in the draft; however these letters do agree with you that the Clean Air Act is a deeply flawed and unsuitable vehicle for reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

(That's the same Susan Dudley who may be held in contempt of Congress along with Johnson.)

Critics of today's notice said it pitted politics against science.

John D. Walke, director of the Clean Air Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, said, "This appalling document pits the Bush administration's political machinery against EPA's scientific and legal experts, with the machinery grinding up sound global warming science, legal authority, smart economics and solutions to the problem. These actions by the administration's political machinery deserve to end up, along with the administration's irresponsible global warming legacy, in the dustbin of history."

The notice was released under pressure from the Supreme Court, which ruled last year that the EPA should consider whether to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases.

Johnson made clear his views on the matter in a letter that accompanied the release od the 1,000-page report.

One point is clear: the potential regulations of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy.

We sort of knew this was coming, since the White House had refused to open an email delivering the EPA staff's conclusions about greenhouse gases.

Vice President Dick Cheney's office apparently worked to cut swaths of the Center for Disease Control's congressional testimony on the effects of greenhouse gases.

The information was revealed in a letter from recently-resigned associate deputy EPA administrator, Jason Burnett, obtained by the AP, to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA):

"The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change," Burnett has told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

. . . The letter by Burnett for the first time suggests that Cheney's office was deeply involved in downplaying the impacts of climate change as related to public health and welfare, Senate investigators believe.

Cheney's office also objected last January over congressional testimony by Administrator Johnson that "greenhouse gas emissions harm the environment."

An official in Cheney's office "called to tell me that his office wanted the language changed" with references to climate change harming the environment deleted, Burnett said. Nevertheless, the phrase was left in Johnson's testimony.

As we've reported, the Senate and House have been trying for months to check communications and other documents on the role of political influence in the EPAs work.

Burnett left the EPA in June after disagreements over the "agency's response to climate change":

The White House, at the urging of Cheney's office, "requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change," wrote Burnett.

"CEQ contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony," Burnett said in the letter to Boxer.

But he said he refused to press CDC on the deletions because he believed the CDC's draft testimony was "fundamentally accurate."

[Late update]: To view the letter from Burnett to Boxer, click here.

The Bush Administration's newest tactic for policymaking is to ignore emails.

The New York Times reports today that White House officials simply refused to open an email from the EPA last year because they knew it contained a policy recommendation they didn't like -- part of the Administration's on-going battle with scientists at the EPA over global warming issues.

The document, which ended up in e-mail limbo, without official status, was the E.P.A.'s answer to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that required it to determine whether greenhouse gases represent a danger to health or the environment, the officials said.

Instead of officially acknowledging the email and responding to it in a normal bureaucratic manner, the White House instead launched a behind-the-scenes campaign to pressure the EPA to drop the recommendation's essential conclusions.

Both documents, as prepared by the E.P.A., "showed that the Clean Air Act can work for certain sectors of the economy, to reduce greenhouse gases," one of the senior E.P.A. officials said. "That's not what the administration wants to show. They want to show that the Clean Air Act can't work."

The White House lost its battle in the Supreme Court. It's stonewalling efforts by lawmakers on Capitol Hill to investigate the policy-making process. And now there's evidence that it is not only rejecting but even ignoring efforts by the EPA to adhere to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

At least one EPA official quit over the email incident.

White House pressure to ignore or edit the E.P.A.'s climate-change findings led to the resignation of one agency official earlier this month: Jason Burnett, the associate deputy administrator. Mr. Burnett, a political appointee with broad authority over climate-change regulations, said in an interview that he had resigned because "no more constructive work could be done" on the agency's response to the Supreme Court.

He added, "The next administration will have to face what this one did not."

Before he left for Washington for the first time, former President Harry Truman got a piece of memorable advice: "Work hard, keep your mouth shut, and answer your mail."

Maybe President Bush never got that same advice.

The Bush Administration has had since March 12 to respond to the subpoenas from the House oversight committee requesting documents pertaining to the EPA decisions on greenhouse gas and ozone regulations. Yet it waited until this morning -- the day the Committee was scheduled to vote on their contempt for their failure to respond -- to assert executive privilege.

Time and again, that inveterate stonewaller, EPA administrator Stephen Johnson, has gone up against committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) and bobbed and weaved through his testimony, never quite answering questions but never quite invoking executive privilege either.

During a May 20, 2008, appearance before the committee, Johnson was specifically asked by Waxman whether he was invoking executive privilege. "Not at this time," Johnson replied.

Well that time must have passed.

More on "Stonewall" Johnson's evasive maneuvers after the jump.

Read more »

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has had enough of the great stonewaller himself, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

In a letter today to Johnson, Waxman threatens to hold Johnson in contempt for failing to comply with congressional subpoenas requesting information on two recent controversial decisions by Johnson that overruled EPA's professional staff: his refusal to grant California a waiver to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles and his refusal to fully raise ozone standards.

Waxman, the chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent a similar letter threatening contempt to White House official Susan Dudley, in the Office of Management and Budget, for the White House's refusal to comply with a related subpoena.

You have neither complied with these subpoenas by their returnable date nor asserted any privilege to justify withholding documents from the Committee. In light of your actions, I am writing to inform you that the Committee will meet on June 20 to consider a resolution citing you for contempt of Congress. I strongly urge you to comply with the duly issued subpoenas.

The full text of the letters are here (pdf) and here (pdf).