"Put nothing in writing"

[justashooter 430]

Please Please Please America....get these traitors OUT OF POWER !!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/op...-50260677.html

'Put nothing in writing,' Browner told auto execs on secret White House CAFE talks; Sensenbrenner wants investigation

By: Mark Tapscott

Editorial Page Editor

07/08/09 5:52 PM EDT

Carol Browner, former Clinton administration EPA head and current Obama White House climate czar, instructed auto industry execs "to put nothing in writing, ever" regarding secret negotiations she orchestrated regarding a deal to increase federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-WI, is demanding a congressional investigation of Browner's conduct in the CAFE talks, saying in a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman, D-CA, that Browner "intended to leave little or no documentation of the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards."

Federal law requires officials to preserve documents concerning significant policy decisions, so instructing participants in a policy negotation concerning a major federal policy change could be viewed as a criminal act.

Waxman is chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. Sensenbrenner is the ranking Republican member of the panel.

Browner's informal directive was previously reported by The New York Times. Sensebrenner's letter is being made public tomorrow. A copy was made available to The Examiner by an official with knowledge of the controversy.

Sensenbrenner also wants a congressional investigation of why a global warming study by Alan Carlin, an EPA economist who is a career civil servant, was suppressed by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and other senior agency officials. The study warned of seriously damaging economic consequences for small businesses if the agency moved to regulate CO2 gases as illegal emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The CO2 gases, which are also produced by humans and other air-breathing creatures when they exhale, are viewed by global warming activists as contributing to the trapping of heat in the atmosphere when carbon-based fuels like oil and coal are burned. Carlin's situation was previously detailed here by The Examiner.

When the study author requested that it be included in official EPA materials on the issue of whether the agency should adopt an "endangerment rule" to allow regulation of CO2, senior agency officials denied it. Al McGartland, director of EPA's National Center for Environmental Economics, told Carlin that his study was rejected because "your comments do not help the legal or policy case" for EPA's decision to enact the endangerment rule.

In other words, according to Sensenbrenner, EPA officials purposely ignored the study simply because it did not advance their political policy agenda. Both President Obama and EPA's Jackson have repeatedly promised not to make policy decisions on the basis of political or ideological considerations.

The full text of Sensenbrenner's letter follows:

July 8, 2009

The Honorable Edward Markey

Chairman, House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

2125 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Chairman Markey:

During her confirmation hearing, Administrator Jackson promised “overwhelming

transparency.” She said, “[a]s Administrator, I will ensure EPA’s efforts to address the

environmental rises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: Science-based policies and

programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency.” Notwithstanding this

promise, EPA has conducted itself under an unprecedented veil of secrecy.

I initially raised these concerns in a letter to you and Congressman Towns dated June 9,

2009.1 In that letter I cited two incidents. First, Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air

Resources Board (CARB), revealed that the White House had held a series of secret meetings as

they were crafting the new Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. Nichols

admitted that there was a deliberate “vow of silence” surrounding the negotiations with the

White House on vehicle fuel standards.2 According to Nichols, “[Carol] Browner [Assistant to

the President for Energy and Climate Change] quietly orchestrated private discussions from the

White House with auto industry officials.” Negotiators were instructed to “put nothing in

writing, ever.” Clearly, Browner’s actions were intended to leave little to no documentation of

the deliberations that lead to stringent new CAFE standards.

The second issue raised in the previous letter related to EPA’s proposed endangerment

finding. An official from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) warned EPA in an

interagency memo that “[m]aking a decision to regulate CO2 under the CAA for the first time is

likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S.

economy, including small businesses and small communities.”3 According to Administration

sources, these warning were dismissed, in part, because they originated from “a Bush

Holdover.”4 In fact, the “holdover” was a career civil servant hired by the Clinton

Administration.

1 Letter from the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner and Darrel Issa to the Honorable Edolphus Towns and

Edward Markey (June 9, 2009).

2 Colin Sullivan, Vow of Silence Key to White House-California Fuel Economy Talks, New York Times,

May 20, 2009.

3 Ian Talley, OMB Memo: Serious Impact Likely from EPA CO2 Rules, Dow Jones Newswire, May 11,

2009, available at http://www.djnewsplus.com/article_ss...html?param=gn&

4 Ian Talley, EPA Chief Says CO2 Finding May Not ‘Mean Regulation,’ Wall Street Journal, May 13, 2009.

I am again raising concerns regarding the transparency of EPA’s process in light of new

evidence of suppression at EPA. In a series of emails, dated March 12-17, 2009, the Director of

EPA’s National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE) expressly refused to include

relevant scientific evidence in the official record because, in his view, the administration had

already reached its conclusion regarding the endangerment finding.

On March 16, a senior analyst with EPA wrote to his office director to request that his

comments be included in EPA’s record. The analyst wrote:

I believe my comments are valid, significant, and contain references to significant new

research since the cut-off for IPCC and CCSP inputs. They are significant because they

present information critical to the justification (or lack thereof) for the proposed

endangerment finding. They are valid because they explain much of the observational data

that have been collected which cannot be explained by the IPCC models.

In response, the director refused to forward the analyst’s comments, not because he questioned

their scientific merits, but because “[t]he administrator and administration has decided to move

forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this

decision.”5

The director then sent a follow-up email, forbidding the analyst from continuing his

work: “With the endangerment finding nearly final, you need to move on to other issues and

subjects. I don’t want you to spend any additional EPA time on climate change. No papers, no

research etc.”

As it did with the OMB memo, EPA attacked the analyst’s credibility. In response to

publication of the above emails, EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy reiterated EPA’s now empty

pledge of transparency and said, “n this instance, certain opinions were expressed by an

individual who is not a scientist and was not part of the working group dealing with this issue.”6

In fact, the analyst is a 38-year EPA employee with a scientific background, but

regardless, EPA’s response ignores the ultimate problem. NCEE’s director did not dismiss the

analyst’s opinions because of his scientific background or because of the merits of his study, the

director expressly refused to forward his opinion because they did not support the conclusions

that EPA had already reached.

This past December, President Obama said, “[p]romoting science isn’t just about

providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry. It’s about ensuring that facts

and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what

our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient.”

5 Email from Office Director of EPA’s NCEE to Senior Operations Research Analyst at NCEE (March 17,

2009).

6 Robin Bravender, House GOP Accuses Admin of Suppressing EPA Staff on ‘endangerment' finding,’

E&ENews (June 25, 2009).

The email exchange documents a second instance in which EPA refused to consider

alternative internal opinions and delineates an agency culture set in a predetermined course. It

therefore raises substantial questions about what additional evidence may have been suppressed.

EPA has become an agency determined to silence inconvenient perspectives, but as

policymakers we must openly and honestly consider all reliable evidence.

I therefore respectfully request that we hold a hearing to investigate the lack of transparency at EPA. I am prepared to assist in any way necessary to help prepare for such a hearing.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Ranking Member

Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming

[Ban Hammer 13,643]

not surprising. this is change!