Rep. Gosar Files Articles of Impeachment against EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy

For Immediate Release

Date: September 11, 2015

Contact: Steven D. Smith

Steven.Smith@mail.house.gov

           

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Congressman Paul A. Gosar, D.D.S. (AZ-04) released the following statement after introducing H.RES.417 with 20 other members of Congress, which begins the impeachment process for Gina McCarthy, Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), after she committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings, and as a result, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors:

“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.”  

Background:

The text of Congressman Gosar’s legislation can be found HERE.

Original Cosponsors of H.RES.417 include Reps. Mark Amodei, Brian Babin, Mo Brooks, Michael Burgess, Rick Crawford, Scott DesJarlais, Jeff Duncan, Trent Franks, Louie Gohmert, Jody Hice, Sam Johnson, Steve King, Walter B. Jones, Jr., Scott Perry, John Ratcliffe, Jason Smith, Randy Weber, Lynn Westmoreland, Joe Wilson and Ted Yoho.

Additionally, H.RES.417 is endorsed by FreedomWorks.

Administrator McCarthy committed perjury and made several false statements at multiple congressional hearings, and as a result, is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors—an impeachable offense.

On July 9, 2015, Administrator McCarthy appeared before the House Committee on Space, Science, and Technology and made false statements in violation of section 1001 of title 18, United States Code.  When questioned on 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, 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.”

An April 27th memo to Jo-Ellen Darcy, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works, from Major General John Peabody, 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.

On July 29, 2015, Administrator McCarthy appeared before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and committed perjury in violation of section 1621 of title 18, United States Code. At the hearing, Congressman Gosar entered into the Congressional Record the April 27th and May 15th memorandums from Corps’ Major General Peabody.  These memos include remarks that directly contradict statements made under oath by Administrator McCarthy at the hearing including: that Gen. Peabody and other Army Corps employees had “serious concerns about certain aspects of the draft final rule”; that “the Corps’ recommendations related to our most serious concerns have gone unaddressed”; that “the rule’s contradictions with legal principles generate multiple legal and technical consequences that, in the view of the Corps, would be fatal to the rule in its current form”; that “our technical review of both documents indicate that the Corps data provided to EPA has been selectively applied out of context, and mixes terminology and disparate data sets”; and that “In the Corps' judgment, the documents contain numerous inappropriate assumptions with no connection to the data provided, misapplied data, analytical deficiencies, and logical inconsistencies. As a result, the Corps' review could not find a justifiable basis in the analysis for many of the documents' conclusions.”

On June 10, 2015, Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) Jo-Ellen Darcy appeared before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. When asked about the Peabody memos she stated, “We took those concerns and talked through them and walked through them with the Environmental Protection Agency.” 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.

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.

###