After House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) called Rep. Henry Waxman's gavel-banging outburst "outrageous threats and intimidation" and demanded an apology, the diminutive Waxman laughed and had this to say: "Just look at me," he said. "How can you not quake in my presence?"

From the AP:

A Senate panel voted narrowly Wednesday to overturn EPA's decision blocking California and more than a dozen other states from limiting greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles.

The bill by California Democrat Barbara Boxer passed the Environment and Public Works committee 10 to 9, sending it to the full Senate.

One committee Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware, broke with others on his side of the aisle and voted "no." A Republican, John Warner of Virginia, voted "yes," allowing the bill to pass.

In December, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson turned down California's request for a Clean Air Act waiver that would have allowed the state to require automakers to cut global warming emissions by 30% in new cars and light trucks by 2016.

Boxer's bill would deem the waiver approved.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has reacted angrily to Chairman Howard Waxman's gaveling down of Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) yesterday during a hearing with EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson.

Here's the statement from Boehner:

"Chairman Waxman's behavior in the Oversight & Government Reform Committee yesterday was appalling and beneath the dignity of the House. His abuse of power is further proof that House Democrats have broken their promise to run the most open and honest Congress in history. Moreover, his outrageous threats and intimidation against a fellow Committee colleague were not only unbecoming for a Member of Congress, but frankly, unbecoming for anyone who hopes to be treated as a professional. Chairman Waxman owes an apology to Mr. Issa, his Committee colleagues, and anyone who witnessed his shameful behavior. But more importantly, he owes the American people an apology because these types of heavy-handed threats have no place in the people's House."

In a showdown between irresistible force and immovable object, the immovable object won.

Under withering questioning this afternoon from exasperated House government oversight committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA), EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson held his ground, repeating the same non-responsive answers until the usually unflappable Waxman finally lost his temper.

Waxman was asking Johnson whether he had ever discussed two ozone rulings with the President. Johnson has previously testified that he had discussed California's emissions waiver, but now refused to say whether he had discussed the ozone rulings. The White House's involvement in overruling science-based recommendations from EPA staff in favor of more politically expedient alternatives is now the focus of Waxman's investigation.

As Waxman continued to press this line of questioning, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), the highest ranking Republican present at the hearing, protested that Waxman was asking questions out of turn, prompting Waxman to threaten to have Issa removed from the hearing room.

This sort of song and dance from Johnson is now routine. He's managed to skate through multiple Senate and House hearings now, confirming his critics' impressions that he's a deceptive political hack, but avoiding actually answering the questions.

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, perhaps the Administration's most accomplished stonewaller, goes before the House government oversight committee today to testify -- again -- about his refusal to grant a waiver for California to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions despite unanimous staff support for such a waiver.

So far, Johnson has been a most reluctant witness, going so far as to schedule overseas trips to avoid attending congressional hearings. But Rep. Henry Waxman's committee staff has continued digging, reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing witnesses outside the public eye. Yesterday, in advance of Johnson's appearance, Waxman released a 20-page memo and supporting documents on what his committee has found so far.

The headliner of the memo is that a top EPA official conceded in sworn testimony that he believed that Johnson changed his mind about supporting the waiver after he talked to the White House:

In one deposition, EPA Associate Deputy Administrator Jason Burnett told congressional investigators that Johnson in August and September was "very interested in a full grant of the waiver," then said he thought a partial grant of the waiver "was the best course of action."

California has the right to enact tougher air pollution laws under the Clean Air Act but must secure a waiver from the EPA.

Johnson denied California's request in December. When asked whether the administrator communicated with the White House in between his preference to do a partial grant and the ultimate decision, Burnett said, "I believe the answer is yes."

With a flourish, the EPA dismissed the news that Johnson has initially supported the waiver. "I equate this to deciding whether to wear a red tie or a blue tie in the morning," an EPA spokesperson told Reuters. "It doesn't make much difference until I put the tie on. To go through and suggest that maybe (Johnson) had a different opinion during the process -- none of that matters."

As the Post's Juliet Eilperin notes, the details of the White House involvement remain murky:

It remains unclear how exactly senior Bush officials intervened in the decision. Burnett said he was instructed not to answer questions about the White House's involvement, and the White House maintains that Johnson was not influenced by his talks with White House officials.

"As Administrator Johnson said in his statement, he made an independent decision and his decision was based on the facts and the law," said Kristen Hellmer, spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

Given Johnson's previous refusals to divulge what he and the White House discussed, don't expect Waxman to make much progress with Johnson in today's hearing. The real fireworks may be between committee Democrats and Republicans. Ranking Member Tom Davis (R-VA) called yesterday's majority memo "a knee-jerk conclusion of nefarious intent by the White House derived from a manifestly incomplete investigation."

For those who've been watching the Environmental Protection Agency under the Bush administration, you're familiar with the following pattern: the EPA, over the objection of its own scientists, issues a new rule that weakens environmental controls, but when pressed for an explanation, EPA officials explain that the new rule has nothing to do with easing the restrictions on polluters. No -- the change is merely a clarification, or a technical fix to some nonsense bureaucratic rule, or the inescapable conclusion drawn from a sober appraisal of the law.

And here we go again. Here's the rule change (note the dissent from EPA scientists):

The Bush administration is on the verge of implementing new air quality rules that will make it easier to build power plants near national parks and wilderness areas, according to rank-and-file agency scientists and park managers who oppose the plan.

The new regulations, which are likely to be finalized this summer, rewrite a provision of the Clean Air Act that applies to "Class 1 areas," federal lands that currently have the highest level of protection under the law. Opponents predict the changes will worsen visibility at many of the nation's most prized tourist destinations, including Virginia's Shenandoah, Colorado's Mesa Verde and North Dakota's Theodore Roosevelt national parks.

And here is the explanation -- from a former EPA official who has departed to head the the environmental strategies group at the law firm Bracewell & Giuliani (yes, that Giuliani) no less:

Jeffrey R. Holmstead... helped initiate the rule change while heading the EPA's air and radiation office. He said agency officials became concerned that the EPA's scientific staff was taking "the most conservative approach" in predicting how much pollution new power plants would produce.

"The question from a policy perspective was: Do you need to have models based on the absolute worst-case conditions that were unlikely to ever occur in the real world?" Holmstead said in an interview Thursday. "This has to do with what [modeling] assumptions you're required to do. This is really a legal issue and a policy issue."

The new rule changes how pollution levels in parks are measured -- instead of frequent measures, the new rule "would average the levels over a year so that spikes in pollution levels would not violate the law." Just a common sense fix, you might say. But as one environmental advocate explains, "It's like if you're pulled over by a cop for going 75 miles per hour in a 55 miles-per-hour zone, and you say, 'If you look at how I've driven all year, I've averaged 55 miles per hour.'"

It looks like the EPA is really competing to not only be the most politicized of the agencies in the Bush Administration, but also to create the most lasting damage.

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.

It's not the first time that the politicization of the Environmental Protection Agency has forced comparisons to Alberto Gonzales' Justice Department, and it surely won't be the last.

On the Senate floor this afternoon, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee (where he joined in the interrogations of Gonzales and other Department officials) as well as the Senate environmental committee (where he's sharply questioned EPA chief Stephen Johnson), said the comparison is inevitable. Yesterday's news that the EPA's top environmental regulator in the Midwest had been fired over her efforts to force Dow Chemical to clean up chemical spills, he said, "looks like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with its political agenda more than it values the trust or best interests of the American people." Here's video:

Whitehouse said that the Senate environmental committee will be holding a hearing on EPA oversight next Wednesday.

From The Chicago Tribune:

The Bush administration forced its top environmental regulator in the Midwest to quit Thursday after months of internal bickering about dioxin contamination downstream from Dow Chemical's world headquarters in Michigan.

In an interview with the Tribune, Mary Gade said two top political appointees at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency headquarters in Washington stripped her of her powers as regional administrator and told her to quit or be fired by June 1.

It appears that the relationship between the EPA political appointees and the career employees is not getting any better.