Washington, DC

Vitter Sees Ozone 'Sue-And-Settle' Case As Test For EPA Counsel Nominee
By Anthony Lacey | June 14, 2013

Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), ranking member on the environment committee, is setting an early test for Avi Garbow's nomination to be the next EPA general counsel by asking him to support industry groups' intervention in an alleged "sue-and-settle" case in which environmentalists are trying to force swift issuance of a revised ozone air quality standard.

"I request you commit to ensuring that these parties have a seat at the table in any negotiations" over environmentalists' notice of intent to sue to force issuance of a new ozone standard, "or any related petition submitted in the future," writes Vitter in a June 14 letter to Garbow, currently deputy general counsel in the agency's Office of General Counsel (OGC).

Vitter's letter comes as industry groups are struggling to win the right to intervene in so-called sue-and-settle suits -- where EPA settles environmentalists' litigation by setting deadlines for new or pending rulemakings -- because courts have largely barred industry from intervening in such cases, finding that the setting of a schedule does not harm industry.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia June 11 reiterated that industry groups lacked standing to intervene in Defenders of Wildlife v. EPA, a case that the agency has agreed to settle by setting a deadline for considering whether to revise its effluent limit for power plants.

As a result of their difficulties in court, industry groups are increasingly turning to Congress to help them intervene in the suits and participate in the crafting of any settlements. They are urging Congress to back pending legislation that seeks to make it easier for industry to intervene in civil suits, participate in the crafting of settlements and allow for greater public comment, arguing that legislation is the "most effective" solution to the issue.

In addition to the pending legislation, some lawmakers like Vitter have also pressured administration nominees to ease industry's ability to intervene. Vitter, for example, has also pressed Gina McCarthy, the administration's nominee to lead EPA, to give industry access to pending notices of intent to sue and rulemaking petitions.

Vitter in the letter to Garbow says EPA has entered nearly 60 settlements with environmental "allies" that have led to "extraordinarily expensive" regulations. "The common feature between these agreements is the exclusion of parties who will ultimately bear the brunt of the regulatory mandates," writes Vitter. He reiterates a request made to McCarthy for EPA to allow industry groups to intervene in settlement talks before an agreement is reached.

"At this time, there is an opportunity for EPA to demonstrate its commitment to reform this practice" by granting a request from 12 trade associations to participate in talks between Earthjustice and EPA over the environmental group's notice of intent to sue the agency unless it issues revisions to its ozone standard, Vitter writes.

One environmentalist says Vitter's questions reflect a strategy to block President Obama's nominees. "Senator Vitter's thinly veiled threat to the nominee for EPA General Counsel, like the mistreatment of Gina McCarthy, confirms Republicans' cynical, political obstruction of the president's nominees, not based on their qualifications but instead due to ideological opposition to enforcing health, safety and environmental laws," the source says.

Ozone Petition
Vitter is urging Garbow to allow industry to intervene in any discussions over Earthjustice's March 13 notice of intent to sue EPA for failing to meet a Clean Air Act mandate to review its national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) every five years.

EPA last revised the ozone NAAQS March 12, 2008, tightening it to 75 parts per billion (ppb) down from the 1997 limit of 80 ppb. The agency is working on a review of the 2008 limit but is yet to issue a proposal. Earthjustice notes that March 12, 2013, marked five years since the last standard review and therefore EPA is now violating the air law's five-year review mandate.

EPA's "Rulemaking Gateway" of pending regulations says the agency initiated its five-year review of the 2008 standard Oct. 2, 2008, with a proposed rule slated for publication in the Federal Register in January.

In request to a response for comment, an agency spokeswoman says, "EPA and its panel of independent science advisors are actively reviewing the latest science and data on ozone's impacts on public health and the environment. This scientific review of air quality standards is extensive, open and public. Upon completion of the scientific review, the agency will develop a proposal, which will also be subject to and open public comment process."

The environmentalists in their letter call for "immediate action" in issuing a proposed revised NAAQS, otherwise the American Lung Association, Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club will file suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The notice of intent to sue, sent by Earthjustice's Paul Cort, hints at a willingness to avoid filing the suit by offering discussions to "explore possible options for resolving this claim short of litigation."

-30-

Washington, DC

Continued GOP/Vitter opposition threatens confirmation of Obama's EPA nominee
By Bruce Alpert | June 10, 2013

WASHINGTON -- Gina McCarthy's nomination to head the Environmental Protection Agency remains on hold because of continued opposition by Republicans led by Louisiana Sen. David Vitter.

Vitter reiterated Monday his request that McCarthy provide documents requested by him and other Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

"On April 11, in your nomination hearing, you pledged to provide the Committee with relevant information we requested and that you would provide all documents and other information to the Committee in a timely manner," Vitter said in a letter to McCarthy. "This is especially important in connection with our ongoing pursuit of transparency."

Vitter spokesman Luke Bolar said of the documents requested by Vitter and other committee Republicans, less than 5 percent has been provided. That doesn't include, he said, requests that McCarthy commit to operating EPA with more transparency on issues such as Freedom of Information Act requests and settlement of lawsuits with environmental groups.

Vitter is the top Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

McCarthy, currently assistant administrator of EPA, was nominated March 4 by President Barack Obama to replace New Orleans native Lisa Jackson as the agency administrator. A Boston native, McCarthy has worked for more than two decades as an environmental administrator, including a stint as the environmental adviser for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, the 2012 GOP presidential nominee.

Bloomberg Business Week reported that one of the requests from Vitter -- data supporting a link between air pollution and premature death -- was compiled by Harvard University two decades ago and confidentiality agreements with thousands of participants prevent researchers from making it public. Even EPA can't access the Harvard analysis, Business Week said.

According to Business Week, Vitter has said that he would filibuster the McCarthy nomination without the Harvard data. The energy industry has disputed some of the links between air pollution and early death. It's more than a philosophical disagreement -- the data justified some of EPA's regulatory action on diesel engines, industrial boilers and coal-generated power plants.

Environmentalists have accused Vitter and Republicans of demanding so much information in an effort to paralyze the agency.

"She's answered more than 1,000 questions from committee Democrats and Republicans," said Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. "She's demonstrated a strong commitment to protect our air, water, land and health. And no one is better qualified to lead this vital agency at a time of mounting climate crisis."

Vitter said he and fellow Republicans aren't being unreasonable.

Vitter pointed to the delay of a confirmation vote for Allison MacFarlane to head the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, due to a request by Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., for nearly 70,000 documents. Vitter said the delay worked because Boxer got the information she requested.

Democrats are conceding the McCarthy nomination is in jeopardy. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he wouldn't schedule a Senate vote on her nomination until July.

Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said he isn't sure whether McCarthy, or Labor Secretary nominee Thomas Perez, has the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Perez is another Obama nominee being held up by Vitter and the Republicans.

Some Democrats are pressing Reid and Durbin to change Senate rules so that key presidential and judicial nominations can be confirmed with a simple majority of the 100-member Senate -- rather than the 60 votes now routinely required by Republicans.

-30-

Washington, DC

Top Political Appointees Use Secret Email Accounts

By Jack Gillum | June 4, 2013

WASHINGTON - Some of President Barack Obama's political appointees, including the secretary for Health and Human Services, are using secret government email accounts they say are necessary to prevent their inboxes from being overwhelmed with unwanted messages, according to a review by The Associated Press.

The scope of using the secret accounts across government remains a mystery: Most U.S. agencies have failed to turn over lists of political appointees' email addresses, which the AP sought under the Freedom of Information Act more than three months ago. The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay more than $1 million for its email addresses.

The AP asked for the addresses following last year's disclosures that the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency had used separate email accounts at work. The practice is separate from officials who use personal, non-government email accounts for work, which generally is discouraged - but often happens anyway - due to laws requiring that most federal records be preserved.

The secret email accounts complicate an agency's legal responsibilities to find and turn over emails in response to congressional or internal investigations, civil lawsuits or public records requests because employees assigned to compile such responses would necessarily need to know about the accounts to search them. Secret accounts also drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions.

"What happens when that person doesn't work there anymore? He leaves and someone makes a request (to review emails) in two years," said Kel McClanahan, executive director of National Security Counselors, an open government group. "Who's going to know to search the other accounts? You would hope that agencies doing this would keep a list of aliases in a desk drawer, but you know that isn't happening."

Agencies where the AP so far has identified secret addresses, including the Labor Department and HHS, said maintaining non-public email accounts allows senior officials to keep separate their internal messages with agency employees from emails they exchange with the public. They also said public and non-public accounts are always searched in response to official requests and the records are provided as necessary.

The AP couldn't independently verify the practice. It searched hundreds of pages of government emails previously released under the open records law and found only one instance of a published email with a secret address: an email from Labor Department spokesman Carl Fillichio to 34 coworkers in 2010 was turned over to an advocacy group, Americans for Limited Government. It included as one recipient the non-public address for Seth D. Harris, currently the acting labor secretary, who maintains at least three separate email accounts.

Google can't find any reference on the Internet to the secret address for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Congressional oversight committees told the AP they were unfamiliar with the non-public government addresses identified so far by the AP.

Ten agencies have not yet turned over lists of email addresses, including the Environmental Protection Agency; the Pentagon; and the departments of Veterans Affairs, Transportation, Treasury, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Homeland Security, Commerce and Agriculture. All have said they are working on a response to the AP.

White House spokesman Eric Schultz declined to comment.

A Treasury Department spokeswoman, Marissa Hopkins Secreto, referred inquiries to the agency's FOIA office, which said its technology department was still searching for the email addresses. Other departments, including Homeland Security, did not respond to questions from the AP about the delays of nearly three months. The Pentagon said it may have an answer by later this summer.

The Health and Human Services Department initially turned over to the AP the email addresses for roughly 240 appointees - except none of the email accounts for Sebelius, even one for her already published on its website. After the AP objected, it turned over three of Sebelius' email addresses, including a secret one. It asked the AP not to publish the address, which it said she used to conduct day-to-day business at the department. Most of the 240 political appointees at HHS appeared to be using only public government accounts.

The AP decided to publish the secret address for Sebelius - KGS2(at)hhs.gov - over the government's objections because the secretary is a high-ranking civil servant who oversees not only major agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services but also the implementation of Obama's signature health care law. Her public email address is Kathleen.Sebelius(at)hhs.gov.

At least two other senior HHS officials - including Donald Berwick, former head of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and Gary Cohen, a deputy administrator in charge of implementing health insurance reform - also have secret government email addresses, according to the records obtained by the AP.

The Interior Department gave the AP a list of about 100 government email addresses for political appointees who work there but none for the interior secretary at the time, Ken Salazar, who has since resigned. Spokeswoman Jessica Kershaw said Salazar maintained only one email address while serving as secretary but she would not disclose it. She said the AP should ask for it under the Freedom of Information Act, which would take months longer.

The Labor Department initially asked the AP to pay just over $1.03 million when the AP asked for email addresses of political appointees there. It said it needed pull 2,236 computer backup tapes from its archives and pay 50 people to pore over old records. Those costs included three weeks to identify tapes and ship them to a vendor, and pay each person $2,500 for nearly a month's work. But under the department's own FOIA rules - which it cited in its letter to the AP - it is prohibited from charging news organizations any costs except for photocopies after the first 100 pages. The department said it would take 14 weeks to find the emails if the AP had paid the money.

Fillichio later acknowledged that the $1.03 million bill was a mistake and provided the AP with email addresses for the agency's Senate-confirmed appointees, including three addresses for Harris, the acting secretary. His secret address was harris.sd(at)dol.gov. His other accounts were one for use with labor employees and the public, and another to send mass emails to the entire Labor Department, outside groups and the public. The Labor Department said it did not object to the AP publishing any of Harris' email addresses.

In addition to the email addresses, the AP also sought records government-wide about decisions to create separate email accounts. But the FOIA director at HHS, Robert Eckert, said the agency couldn't provide such emails without undergoing "an extensive and elongated department-wide search." He also said there were "no mechanisms in place to determine if such requests for the creation of secondary email accounts were submitted by the approximately 242 political appointees within HHS."

Late last year, the EPA's critics - including Republicans in Congress - accused former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson of using an email account under the name "Richard Windsor" to sidestep disclosure rules. The EPA said emails Jackson sent using her Windsor alias were turned over under open records requests. The agency's inspector general is investigating the use of such accounts, after being asked to do so by Congress.

An EPA spokeswoman described Jackson's alternate email address as "an everyday, working email account of the administrator to communicate with staff and other government officials." It was later determined that Jackson also used the email address to correspond sometimes with environmentalists outside government and at least in some cases did not correct a misperception among outsiders they were corresponding with a government employee named Richard Windsor.

Although the EPA's inspector general is investigating the agency's use of secret email accounts, it is not reviewing whether emails from Jackson's secret account were released as required under the Freedom of Information Act.

The EPA's secret email accounts were revealed last fall by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank that was tipped off about Jackson's alias by an insider and later noticed it in documents it obtained the FOIA. The EPA said its policy was to disclose in such documents that "Richard Windsor" was actually the EPA administrator.

Courts have consistently set a high bar for the government to withhold public officials' records under the federal privacy rules. A federal judge, Marilyn Hall Patel of California, said in August 2010 that "persons who have placed themselves in the public light" - such as through politics or voluntarily participation in the public arena - have a "significantly diminished privacy interest than others." Her ruling was part of a case in which a journalist sought FBI records, but was denied.

"We're talking about an email address, and an email address given to an individual by the government to conduct official business is not private," said Aaron Mackey, a FOIA attorney with the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. He said that's different than, for example, confidential information, such as a Social Security number.

Under the law, citizens and foreigners may use the FOIA to compel the government to turn over copies of federal records for zero or little cost. Anyone who seeks information through the law is generally supposed to get it unless disclosure would hurt national security, violate personal privacy or expose business secrets or confidential decision-making in certain areas.

Obama pledged during his first week in office to make government more transparent and open. The nation's signature open-records law, he said in a memo to his Cabinet, would be "administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails."

-30-

Washington, DC

Reuters
Republicans see IRS scandal parallel in EPA info requests
By Valerie Volcovici | May 17, 2013

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican lawmakers on Friday began an investigation into whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency greatly favored left-leaning environmentalists over conservative groups when granting fee waivers for requests to access information.

The lawmakers drew a comparison between the actions they say the EPA has taken with the Internal Revenue Service, which is embroiled in controversy over its targeting of conservative groups for extra scrutiny.

Republican Senators David Vitter of Louisiana, Charles Grassley of Iowa and James Inhofe of Oklahoma, and Representative Darrell Issa of California, raised the issue in a letter to the acting administrator of the EPA.

The four lawmakers serve as the top Republicans on the environment, judiciary and House oversight and government reform committees, respectively.

They asked why 92 percent of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) fee waivers were granted to "environmental allies," while just 8 percent were granted to conservative think tanks. The disparity came to light this week in a report by a conservative research group.

Agencies can waive fees for requested information if they determine the information contributes to the public understanding of governmental activities.

"This disparate treatment is unacceptable, especially in light of the recent controversy over abusive tactics at the Internal Revenue Service, which singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Bob Perciasepe, the EPA's acting administrator.

The Republicans accused the EPA of colluding with groups that share its political agenda and requested that the agency takes steps to ensure this does not happen again.

They requested that the EPA provide a list of all fee waiver decision letters on a monthly basis, make the agency's FOIA officer available for a transcribed interview and provide any materials used to train FOIA officers on how to process fee waiver requests.

Vitter met with Perciasepe earlier in the week and said he made progress with him on five key areas in which the EPA can improve its transparency, including how it handles FOIA requests.

Interest groups, researchers and journalists have filed FOIA requests with the EPA to understand how it goes about its process of writing regulations. Conservative groups have called this process opaque.

Perciasepe is heading the EPA while President Barack Obama's nominee to head the agency, Gina McCarthy, remains in the middle of a tough confirmation process.

McCarthy has had requests to answer more than 1,000 questions by Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which Democrats have termed a record number.

Her nomination was sent to the full Senate on Thursday after a party line vote in committee. No date has been set for consideration. The first committee vote scheduled on McCarthy was abandoned when Republicans boycotted the meeting.

......

Washington Examiner
Congressmen demand end to EPA's IRS-like bias against conservative, state/local FOIA requestors

By Mark Tapscott | May 17, 2013

[Four] powerful congressional Republicans want to know more - a lot more - about why and how Environmental Protection Agency officials have for several years erected multiple obstacles to conservative think tanks, media outlets and non-profit activists filing Freedom of Information Act requests with the agency.

"According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for liberal environmental groups - effectively subsidizing them - while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups," said Sen. David Vitter, Rep. Darrell Issa [and Sens. Jim Inhofe and Chuck Grassley] in a letter today to EPA's acting administrator, Bob Perciasepe.

"This is a clear abuse of discretion. Consequently, the committees request that you immediately take necessary steps to ensure that such manipulation of the FOIA process does not occur in the future," Vitter, Issa, [Inhofe and Grassley] wrote.

Reproduction fees covering multiple documents can easily run into the thousands of dollars, which is why Congress included a liberal waiver provision in the original FOIA it approved in 1966 and which remains in the law today.

Issa, a California Republican, is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, while Vitter, a Louisiana Republican, is the ranking minority member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Their concern about EPA's disparate handling of FOIA requests from conservative and liberal requestors was initially sparked by research by Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Christopher Horner.

Horner, a long-time critic of EPA and liberal environmental policies, published a book - The Liberal War Against Transparency - last year in which he revealed the use of private email accounts to do official business by EPA officials beginning in the Clinton administration under administrator Carol Browner.

Federal officials are required to disclose such email use to agency FOIA staffs to insure their content is included where appropriate in responses to FOIA requests.

As first reported earlier this week by The Washington Examiner's Michal Conger, a review by committee staff of more than 1,200 FOIA fee waiver requests found that EPA officials waived reproduction fees requested by environmental groups that favor bigger government programs 92 percent of the time.

Fee waiver requests from conservative groups that favor limited government programs, however, were rejected by EPA officials by virtually the same percentage.

Among the favored groups were the Natural Resources Defense Council, Earth Justice, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility and the Center for Biological Diversity.

Besides CEI, the groups discriminated against by EPA included the Institute for Energy Research, Judicial Watch, the National Center for Public Policy Research and the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity.

"The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA's actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency's political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations. This is a clear abuse of discretion," Vitter and Issa [Grassley and Inhofe] said in their letter.

"Consequently, the Committees request that you immediately take necessary steps to ensure that such manipulation of the FOIA process does not occur in the future," they said.

The EPA inspector general has opened an investigation into the agency's fee waiver policies and procedures.

In the meantime, the two congressmen requested that EPA provide them with copies of all FOIA fee waiver requests on a monthly basis, as well as copies of all documents, including internal emails and memos, concerning such requests from Jan. 21, 2009, through May 16, 2013.

......

The Hill
GOP lawmakers compare EPA tactics to IRS targeting
By Julian Hattem | May 17, 2013

Congressional Republicans have accused the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) of giving unfair preference to environmental groups when it comes to information requests.

The lawmakers compared the agency's behavior to the recent revelation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) gave additional scrutiny to Tea Party organizations.

In a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Bob Perciasepe on Friday, four Republicans accused the agency of routinely waiving fees for environmental groups who seek documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) but making conservative think tanks and state and local governments pay full price.

This disparate treatment is unacceptable, especially in light of the recent controversy over abusive tactics at the Internal Revenue Service, which singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny, the legislators wrote.

Sens. David Vitter (R-La.), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) signed on to the letter.

The legislators pointed to data that show that 92 percent of all fee waivers granted by the EPA were to requests from environmental groups.

The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA's actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency's political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations, they alleged. This is a clear abuse of discretion.

They want the agency to submit to Congress information on fee waivers going back to 2009 and seek to question the official in charge of the FOIA office.

The agency is ordering a review of its policies to ensure fairness.

Like other parts of the federal government, the EPA sometimes charges fees for research hours and photocopying of documents requested by a FOIA.

The agency judges requests for waived fees based on six factors, and a requester must prove that the information is in the public interest and not primarily commercially motivated.

EPA makes FOIA waiver determinations based on legal requirements that are consistently applied to all fee waiver requests, not on the identity of the reporter, said EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson in an email. EPA has requested the agency's independent Inspector General to review these criteria to ensure EPA's FOIA process remains open, fair and transparent.

The Republicans' allegations are the latest in a string of criticism against the agency, a pattern that some Democrats claim is obstructionist and designed to prevent the agency from carrying out its duties.

President Obama's nominee to lead the EPA, Gina McCarthy, advanced out of committee on a party line vote on Thursday, but Democrats worry about a Republican filibuster on the Senate floor.

......

Townhall
No Better for Obama Next Week, Either
By Marita Noon | May 19, 2013

It's been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week at the White House-and it isn't looking like next week will be any better. You probably know about Obama's trifecta of troubles: the Benghazi story about the attack that killed four Americans and the aftermath that falsely blamed a YouTube video that "continues to smolder on the far-right side of the dial," the IRS targeting conservative groups for extra scrutiny while giving liberals a pass, and, the one that got the mainstream media engaged: the "broad and potentially chilling probe" conducted by the Justice Department on journalists' phone calls at the Associated Press (AP).

The place in which the President finds himself has been compared to that of Nixon on May 17, 1973, about which US News and World Report states: "The scandal and cover-up came to define and destroy Richard Nixon's presidency. It's too early to tell if the scandals plaguing President Barack Obama ... rise to a similar level."

It may be too early to tell whether the three scandals will "define and destroy" Barack Obama's presidency-but they do reveal a propensity to massage the message and reward their friends while destroying their enemies. And, there are more than the trifecta of troubles that make this point, there's a six-pack of scandals.

In addition to the three-widely covered stories, there are three more with the same characteristics.

EPA Favors Friendlies

We see favoritism in the EPAs treatment of friendly groups vs. a "concerted campaign to make life more difficult for those deemed unfriendly." A few days ago, the Washington Examiner reported on the Competitive Enterprise Institute's (CEI) review of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to see how equally the agency applies its fee waiver policy. The results are shocking.

Chris Horner, Senior Fellow at CEI, told me: "The IRS and EPA revelations are near-identical uses of the state to enable allies and disadvantage opponents. Granting or denying tax-exempt status can make or break a group. The same is true with FOIA fee waivers being tossed like Mardi Gras beads at greens, and denied to opponents of a bigger regulatory state. Fees for FOIA document productions can run into the six-figures."

We'll be hearing more about the EPA friendlies scandal. On Friday, May 17, Senator Vitter's office sent a letter to EPA Acting Administrator Bob Perciasepe requesting "your prompt attention to this matter as we investigate EPA's process for granting FOIA fee waivers." The letter was signed by David Vitter, Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; Darrel Isa, Chairman, Committee on Government Oversight and Reform, U.S. House of Representatives; James Inhofe, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate; and Charles E. Grassley, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate.

The May 17 letter states: "According to documents obtained by the Committees, EPA readily granted FOIA fee waivers for liberal environmental groups-effectively subsidizing them-while denying fee waivers and making the FOIA process more difficult for states and conservative groups. This disparate treatment is unacceptable, especially in light of the recent controversy over abusive tactics at the Internal Revenue Service, which singled out conservative groups for special scrutiny."

It reveals that the "EPA manipulated the FOIA fee waiver process." Fee waiver requests sent by environmental groups were granted for 92% of the requests while EPA denied a fee waiver for 93% of requests from CEI and overall only granted fee waivers for other think tanks 27% of the time. "The startling disparity in treatment strongly suggests EPA's actions are possibly part of a broader effort to collude with groups that share the agency's political agenda and discriminate against states and conservative organizations. This is a clear abuse of discretion."

The Washington Examiner reports: "all requests from Franklin Center and the Institute for Energy Research were denied."

Wind farms get a pass

We see the same "startling disparity in treatment" in the way the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act is applied. Under both acts, the death of a single bird-without a permit-is illegal. On May 14, the AP reported on an investigation that showed that nearly 600,000 birds are killed each year by wind farms, including an average of about one golden eagle a month in Converse County, WY-which the AP calls: "one of the deadliest places in the country of its kind." California's Altamont Pass wind farms "kill more than 60 per year"-making it the "industry's deadliest location."

Yet, "so far, the companies operating industrial-sized turbines here and elsewhere that are killing eagles and other protected birds have yet to be fined or prosecuted-even though every death is a criminal violation. The Obama administration has charged oil companies for drowning birds in their waste pits, and power companies for electrocuting birds on power lines. But the administration has never fined or prosecuted a wind-energy company, even those that flout the law repeatedly."

Back in August 2011, oil company executives were hauled into court, by Timothy Purdon, the US Attorney for North Dakota, over the death of 28 migratory birds-including ducks. Businessweek reported: "The maximum penalty for each charge under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act is six months in prison and a $15,000 fine." The case was thrown out of federal court in January of 2012 by district Judge Daniel Hovland, who rejected US Attorney Purdon's "expansive interpretation of the law" because it "would yield absurd results." The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) called the ruling "withering" and said: the "selective prosecution was probably an expression of its political hostility to oil and gas companies." The report concludes with: "Mr. Purdon takes the prize for dodo prosecutor of the year."

The WSJ didn't point out Purdon's resume. The LA Times reports: "Purdon is a prominent Democratic donor and fundraiser," who served on the Democratic National Committee and who "has no experience as a prosecutor." Purdon was chosen over several, apparently, more qualified candidates, who probably didn't have Purdon's pedigree. He was selected because he's a loyalist who'd do what the White House wanted-and that included prosecuting oil companies for duck deaths.

Similarly, the AP reports that ExxonMobil paid $600,000 for killing 85 birds and BP was fined "$100 million for killing and harming migratory birds during the 2010 Gulf oil spill. And PacifiCorp, which operates coal plants in Wyoming, paid more than $10.5 million in 2009 for electrocuting 232 eagles along power lines and at its substations."

"Meanwhile, the Obama administration has proposed a rule that would give wind-energy companies potentially decades of shelter from prosecution for killing eagles." The wind-energy industry has been part of the committee that drafted and edited the guidelines that the Interior Department updated last year that "provided more cover for wind companies that violate the law." The AP states: "In the end, the wind-energy industry ... got almost everything it wanted."

Former US Fish and Wildlife Service enforcement agent Tom Eicher aptly sums up the scandal: "What it boils down to is this: If you electrocute an eagle, that is bad, but if you chop it to pieces, that is OK." Yet, in an interview with the AP before his departure, former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar "denied any preferential treatment for wind."

Expect more coverage of the preferential application of regulatory enforcement. Rep. Doc Hasting, Chairman of the House Natural Resources committee, made the following statement through spokeswoman Jill Strait: "There are serious concerns that the Obama administration is not implementing this law fairly and equally." The Committee is in "the beginning stages of an investigation."

Propping up green energy

We see similar favoritism across the bigger energy spectrum. Despite President Obama's frequent touting of increased domestic oil and gas production, "federal government policies are suppressing development," says Kathleen Sgamma, Vice-President of Government and Public Affairs for the Western Energy Alliance (WEA). "Unfortunately, the federal government is standing in the way of increasing production of valuable energy resources that could spur further job creation, economic growth, and energy security." To support her comments, the WEA press release offers the following numbers: "From FY2008 to FY2011 the Bureau of Land Management offered 81% less acreage, which has resulted in a 44% drop in leasing revenue, down from $356 million to $201 million. Nationwide, royalty and leasing revenue have declined 12% from $4.2 billion to $3.7 billion." Meanwhile production and revenue on private lands increased.

Additionally, despite numerous reports regarding the positive economic impacts and environmental safety of the Keystone pipeline it has been continuously delayed-now for more than 1700 days. On Thursday, the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee passed a bill that, according to the WSJ, "effectively pushes through approval of the 875-mile pipeline by eliminating the need for Mr. Obama to issue a special permit for it." Transportation committee chair Rep. Bill Shuster said: "After more than four years of bureaucratic delays, this bill will finally allow construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. This project has been studied more than any other project of its kind."

While federal policies are suppressing traditional energy that is effective, efficient and economical, they are propping up projects that have been repeatedly found to be failures-but that benefit Democratic donors.

Through Obama's 2009 Stimulus Bill-which Democratic donors such as John Doerr, and George Soros (personally and through the Soros-funded Apollo Alliance) helped craft-nearly $100 billion dollars have been made available for green energy projects. With the help of researcher Christine Lakatos who's been working on it since 2009, I've been extensively covering the green-energy crony-corruption scandal for the past 12 months. We've found that nearly all of the Department of Energy-funded projects had meaningful political connections and many got special treatment-such as fast-tracked approvals with little scrutiny over environmental damages that would have taken any other energy company months, if not years, to get-from the Department of Interior. The policies benefitted insiders such as Treasury Secretary Jack Lewand Secretary of State John Kerry-just to name a few. To date, 25 have gone bankrupt and four are about to go under-though 29 others have various issues. Denying the dismal record, Obama's 2014 budget calls for more taxpayer dollars for green energy projects. It's scandalous.

Now that the Hill is holding hearings and investigations on Benghazi, the IRS, the AP, the EPA, and the green energy industry's not-so-green slaughter of protected species, it is time to look at the financial and regulatory favors extended to friendlies while erecting obstacles to anything or anyone they oppose-and that includes the green-energy crony-corruption scandal that could be the biggest of them all.

These six scandalous stories illustrate the standard operating procedure of the Obama White House-and, as such, there's likely to be even more. It may be too early to tell whether these scandals will "define and destroy" Barack Obama's presidency, but they are certainly a distraction to his second-term agenda and display a side the administration didn't want made public.

Pick-up this six-pack and share it with others.

-30-