Arizona Lawmaker Calls for Impeachment of EPA Chief McCarthy

According to the lawmaker trying to have her impeached, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy lied to members of Congress several times during testimony about the agency?s takeover of the nation?s waterways.

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) is circulating a?resolution?to have McCarthy removed from the EPA?s top position for ?high crimes?and misdemeanors.?

?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,? Gosar wrote in a separate letter to colleagues.

?Perjury before Congress is perjury to the American people and an affront to the fundamental principles of our republic and the rule of law,? Gosar said. ?Such behavior cannot be tolerated. My legislation will hold Administrator McCarthy accountable for her blatant deceptions and unlawful conduct.?

Gosar lists several examples of McCarthy?s alleged perjury involving her testimony on the EPA?s bid to assert its authority over bodies of water in the U.S., even those as small as puddles and streams.

Some examples he provides in the letter include:

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, I 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.?

McCarthy has served as the EPA?s top official since her appointment by President Obama in 2013. Under her leadership, Gosar and many other conservatives have charged that the agency has sought to vastly expand its regulatory power.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *