FOLLOW THE MOOLA

An Arizona Congressman says that EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy should be impeached, and he has filed Articles of Impeachment against her. Congressman Paul Gosar says that she committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings, and that as a result she is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.  He said in a statement:

“For far too long, Congress has allowed unelected bureaucrats and executive branch officials to slowly bend and break the laws of this country in order to further their own partisan political agendas. We have reached a breaking point where the American people have no faith in the fundamental checks and balances put in place by our founders to protect liberties and freedoms ... On numerous occasions, Gina McCarthy not only broke the law by lying to Congress, but in doing so she also lied to the American people in order to force misguided and overreaching regulations, which have no scientific basis, down our throats. Her agencies new mandates will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs and cause untold economic harm to communities throughout the country. She must be held accountable for violating the rule of law and the only way for that to happen is through the impeachment process..."

And yet according to Matthew Daly at the Associated Press, the Republican House Majority leader says there's no plan to pursue impeachement.

Daly reports that an EPA spokeswoman called McCarthy "a dedicated public servant who performs her duties with the utmost respect for the law."  He quotes:

"...Gosar's resolution 'has zero merit and is nothing more than political theater,' spokeswoman Liz Purchia said Monday. 'Protecting public health and the environment for all Americans should not be a political issue.'..."

Specifically, Gosar cites that McCarthy made false statements on July 19 in a hearing before the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology about "... how a provision in the administration’s new Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule was developed which allows previously non-jurisdictional waters to be regulated if they have a “significant nexus” to jurisdictional waters within 4,000 feet..."

According to the Gosar brief,  McCarthy falsely claimed, “...It is available in the docket…and that’s what we relied on, both the knowledge and expertise of our staff, the information that we received from the public and comments and the science that’s available to us...”

Gosar then cites an April 27th memo to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works from Major General John Peabody, which he says:

 "...proves that this was a false statement and that the 4,000 foot determination was not based on science stating, 'The arbitrary nature of the 4,000-foot cutoff of jurisdiction is demonstrated by the fact that EPA staff engaged in drafting the rule told Corps staff during a conference call in March 2015 that EPA was going to cut off [Clean Water Act] jurisdiction at a distance of 5,000 feet from the [ordinary high water mark] of traditional navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas, impoundments or tributaries. Then, three days later, EPA staff changed its position' and went with the 4,000-foot cutoff; 'EPA staff never provided any scientific support or justification for either a 5,000-foot or 4,000-foot cutoff.'  Furthermore, Federal Judge Ralph R. Erickson also found 'the 4,000 foot cutoff to establish jurisdiction over ‘similarly situated’ waters has no connection to relevant scientific data' and cited this fact as one of the primary reasons for his injunction issued August 27, 2015..."

The Congressman asserts that McCarthy lied on June 2015 regarding  legal and scientific deficiencies raised by Asst. Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)  Jo-Ellen Darcy.  Gosar's statement says:

"...Congressman Gosar asked Administrator McCarthy about these memos at the July 29th hearing stating, “Are you aware of the legal and scientific deficiencies raised by the Corps in those memos?” Administrator McCarthy replied, “Just from what I’ve read, I have not seen the memo myself.”  Later in this exchange, Administrator McCarthy stated, “In moving forward with the final; I individually had conversations with [Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy] about the changes that the Army Corps was interested in making, and as the proposal moved through the interagency process I understood that everything had been fully satisfied.”  Administrator McCarthy committed perjury at this hearing by stating under oath that “all of the changes that the Army Corps was interested in making…had been fully satisfied” and by failing to initially disclose that the Corps of Engineers made her aware of the legal and scientific deficiencies expressed in the Peabody memos..."

Another allegation from Gosar's statement says:

"...On February 4, 2015, Administrator McCarthy appeared at a joint hearing before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and made false statements in violation of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.  When answering questions about WOTUS, McCarthy stated, “Again, we are not expanding jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, we are not eliminating any exemptions or exclusions in this proposal, we are in fact narrowing the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act consistent with sound science and the law.”  However, information on the EPA’s website states, “a very small number of additional waters – 3.2 percent - will be found jurisdictional and an EPA video released with the final rule claims that “until now 60% over our streams and millions of acres of wetlands all across the country were not protected.”  The Peabody memos—previously mentioned—document very well that the new WOTUS regulation is not based on “sound science.”  Further, numerous legal experts, including Federal Judge Erickson, have alleged that WOTUS is not consistent with the law and Justice Kennedy’s opinion in Rapanos ... In the same February 4th hearing, McCarthy made other false and misleading statements. In one instance she stated, 'Look at the history of the EPA in terms of how we listen, we listen to comments that have come in, this is a robust dialogue with the states.' States and local governments were not included in drafting the proposed rule. In fact, 28 different states have filed five different lawsuits in multiple jurisdictions to block WOTUS..."

Gosar pointed out that the EPA's new "Waters of the U.S." regulation (WOTUS) was effective on August 28th, a regulation, which he calls a "job-killing, overreaching water grab being imposed by Washington bureaucrats is a dream killer for future generations that will result in significant job losses and in considerable harm to our economy.   WOTUS contradicts prior Supreme Court decisions by expanding agency control over 60% of our country’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands that were previously non-jurisdictional."  Gosar said:

"...I have been fighting this overreach since the beginning. In May 2014, I sent a letter calling for WOTUS to be withdrawn.  I held a hearing in Phoenix in June 2014 where we heard testimony from 9 Arizona witnesses.  I have introduced legislation, inserted funding riders into appropriations bills, blocked a democrat amendment that tried to strip one of my WOTUS riders and voted at least five different times for legislation that has passed the House to block WOTUS.  In July 2015, I berated EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and submitted revelatory evidence into the Congressional Record from senior Army Corps of Engineer employees which expressed serious legal and scientific deficiencies with the final draft of the WOTUS rule..."

Matthew Daly, in his Associated Press article points out that:

"...A federal court ruling blocked the water measure in 13 central and Western states, but the EPA has said it is going forward with the rule in 37 other states. The EPA says the rule safeguards drinking water for millions of Americans and clarifies that certain waterways fall under federal protection after two Supreme Court rulings left the reach of the Clean Water Act uncertain  ... Sara Chieffo, vice president for government affairs for the League of Conservation Voters, said Gosar's impeachment bid is 'yet another example of what great lengths certain members of Congress will go to to do polluters' bidding and go after the EPA.' ... Gosar, in his third term, has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from electric utilities, the oil and gas industry and mining companies, campaign finance records show ... The impeachment resolution is supported by the libertarian activist group FreedomWorks. Nineteen House Republicans have co-sponsored Gosar's resolution..."

There's no mention in Daly's article about the recent flap regarding an EPA fiasco that dumped toxins into a Colorado River, nor the fact that the EPA was not very forthcoming in revealing the name of the company that caused the environmental nightmare.  However, as Michael Treacher points out at the Daily Caller, all one need do is "follow the money."  He refers us to this revelation by  Michael Bastasch at the DC.  Bastasch reports that:

"...So far, the EPA has refused to publicly name the contracting company used to plug abandoned mines in southern Colorado, despite numerous attempts by The Daily Caller News Foundation and other media outlets to obtain the information. It’s unclear why the agency chose not to reveal the contractor’s name..."

The Wall Street Journal did find out the company's name and that gem turned out to be a Missouri based firm, "Environmental Restoration (ER) LLC."

As Bastasch tells it:

"...What is clear, however, is that ER has gotten $381 million in government contracts since October 2007, according to a WSJ review of data from USAspending.gov. About $364 million of that funding came from the EPA, but only $37 million was given to ER for work they had done in Colorado ..."

In case you missed it:  That's $381 million of tax payer money.  The government gave Environmental Restoration, and that resulted in a severely polluted river, that according to the EPA chief, the focus of the Impeachment articles, is going to restore itself.  And as Jim Treacher points out.  If nature takes care of that, why do we need an EPA?  Why do we need Gina McCarthy?