-
-
"Is the White House Interfering with EPA and Impeding Congressional Oversight? "
SIGH. Does any one out there think the answer to this is, NO? If so, check these sites out:
yubanet.com/usa/White-House-Interferes-with-EPA-Scientists-Analysis
www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/419
yubanet.com/usa/White-House-Overruled-EPA-Administrator-on-Ozone-Re
www.nrdc.org/health/pesticides/natrazine.asp
climateprogress.org/2007/.../more-on-white-house-overruling-epa-staff
etc
etc
etc SIGH. Does any one out there think the answer to this is, NO? If so, check these sites out: ... more -
Climate Change Is Hazardous to Your Health
But don't expect the EPA, which issued the bad health reports, to do anything about it--at least not anytime soon.
-
Climate change to affect health care?
We know about the rising temperatures. The floods and hurricanes, the diseases and the droughts. Now a new EPA studies is released that reiterates all of that, but it also makes the claim that the poor, elderly, and the young will suffer the most in terms of health care.
They won't have access to it, to treatment for climate-change related illness. And that, is another effect of global warming, the EPA says. So it is now, finally, a consideration amongst our policy-makers that the change occurring around the globe is going to affect who gets medical treatment and how. Katrina, anyone? We know about the rising temperatures. The floods and hurricanes, the diseases and the droughts. Now a new EPA studies is released tha... more -
EPA Climate Report, devastating..
Climate change puts US way of life at risk
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under fire for apparently discounting the impact of climate change, on Thursday said global warming poses real risk to human health and the American way of life.
Risks include more heat-related deaths, more heart and lung diseases due to increased ozone and health problems related to hurricanes, extreme precipitation and wildfires, the agency said in a new report.
The study comes on the heels after an off the cuff remark from President George W. Bush at a G8 summit last week, where he ended a private meeting with the quip, "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter," before punching the air.
The EPA doesn't agree.
"Climate change poses real risk to human health and the human systems that support our way of life in the United States," the agency's Joel Scheraga said in a telephone briefing.
The report does not specify how many people in the United States could die due to climate change, because that number can be changed by taking action, Scheraga said.
"We are not saying in this report that more people will die in the future due to climate change," he said. "What we are saying is that there's an increased risk of deaths due to heat waves in the future as the climate changes.
"We have an opportunity to anticipate these increased risks ... and to due to prepare for the future in order to mitigate these risks."
Limited to climate change impacts in the United States, the report found a likely increase in food and water-borne germs as the world warms and habitat ranges expand for some disease-causing organisms.
Also, the inequities now found in the U.S. health care system are likely to be exacerbated by global warming: "Many of the expected health effects are likely to fall disproportionately on the poor, the elderly, the disabled and the uninsured."
Global warming is expected to affect water supplies across the country, with reduced water flow in rivers, lower groundwater levels and more salt creeping into coastal rivers and groundwater, the report said.
People who live along the coasts will face the consequences of rising sea levels and severe weather events while city dwellers can expect higher energy demand to cool buildings -- though the demand for heat will probably decline.
The report covers much of the same substance as an EPA document released on Monday that found global warming endangers human health. This document was part of the agency's response to a 2007 Supreme Court ruling that found the EPA had the power to regulate climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions if it was found that they hurt human health.
However, the agency has indicated no action is likely before the Bush administration leaves office next January.
Stephen Johnson, head of the environmental agency, has been called to testify on July 30 before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on alleged White House interference with the agency. Researchers have repeatedly complained of White House censorship of environmental science.
Climate change puts US way of life at risk ... more -
US Administration won't regulate greenhouse gases
The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global warming Friday, saying it would cripple the U.S. economy.
Members of the G-8 meet this week to discuss a number of issues, including climate change.
In a 588-page federal notice, the Environmental Protection Agency made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health or welfare, reversing an earlier conclusion at the insistence of the White House and officially kicking any decision on a solution to the next president and Congress.
The White House on Thursday rejected the EPA's suggestion three weeks earlier that the 1970 Clean Air Act can be both workable and effective for addressing global climate change. The EPA said Friday that law is "ill-suited" for dealing with global warming.
"If our nation is truly serious about regulating greenhouse gases, the Clean Air Act is the wrong tool for the job," EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson told reporters. "It is really at the feet of Congress."
White House press secretary Dana Perino said President Bush is committed to further reductions but that there is a "right way and a wrong way to deal with climate change."
The wrong way is "to sharply increase gasoline prices, home heating bills and the cost of energy for American businesses," she said. "The right way, as the president has proposed, is to invest in new technologies."
At the just concluded G-8 summit at Toyako, Japan, Bush and other world leaders called for a voluntary 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide by 2050 but offered no specifics on how to do it.
In a setback for Bush, the Supreme Court ruled last year that the government had the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases as a pollutant. Bush has consistently opposed doing that.
Congress hasn't found the will to do much about the problem either. Supporters of regulating greenhouse gases could get only 48 votes in the 100-member Senate last month. The House has held several hearings on the problem but no votes on any bill addressing it. Both major presidential candidates, Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, have endorsed variations of the approach rejected by the Senate.
In its voluminous document, the EPA laid out a buffet of options on how to reduce greenhouse gases from cars, ships, trains, power plants, factories and refineries. On Friday, Johnson said the proposals drafted by his staff put "a square peg into a round hole" and he said moving forward would be irresponsible.
"One point is clear: The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land," Johnson wrote in the document's preface.
Attorneys general from several states called the administration's findings inadequate.
"While we appreciate the effort that EPA staff made in putting together today's documents, the time has long passed for open-ended pondering -- what we need now is action," said Attorney General Martha Coakley of Massachusetts, which initiated the Supreme Court case.
The EPA said it had encountered resistance from the Agriculture, Commerce, Energy and Transportation departments, as well as the White House, that made it "impossible" to respond in a timely fashion to the Supreme Court decision.
"Our agencies have serious concerns with this suggestion because it does not fairly recognize the enormous -- and, we believe, insurmountable -- burdens, difficulties, and costs, and likely limited benefits, of using the Clean Air Act" to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, the secretaries of the four agencies wrote to the White House on Wednesday. The Bush administration, dismissing the recommendations of its top experts, rejected regulating the greenhouse gases blamed for global... more -
EPA chief says Congress should pass greenhouse gases legislation
Responding to a U.S. Supreme Court order, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson said today that the Clean Air Act was "the wrong tool for addressing greenhouse gases" because it would be too costly to the American public, and said that Congress should move forward with passing legislation to tackle the issue instead.
The high court had ordered the EPA more than a year ago to determine if greenhouse gases were a danger to the public. If so, the justices said, under the Clean Air Act, the agency was required to develop regulations to reduce the risk.
Instead, Johnson signed what he said was an unprecedented 1,000-page document this morning that included letters from numerous White House environmental and economic agencies detailing how such regulations could harm major sectors of the economy.
"One point is clear," Johnson said. "The potential regulation of greenhouse gases under any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the economy and touch every household in the land."
He said he would accept comments on the proposed EPA regulations in response to the court order, but stressed repeatedly that it was the wrong approach because of the costs.
The document also includes a sharply revised version of a May draft by EPA staff members in which they concluded as much as $2 trillion in savings to consumers at the gas pump could be achieved if greenhouse gas regulations were implemented. That number was slashed to $830 billion, and the price of gas was calculated at $2 a gallon for the next 30 years. EPA press secretary Jonathan Schradar said he did not know why the numbers had been changed, but said extensive review of the earlier draft had been performed by agency staff members.
Responding to a U.S. Supreme Court order, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson said today that the Clean Air ... more -
EPA's Troubled Waters | American News Project
Polluters dump about 240 million pounds of toxins into our waterways each year, and the long-term effects on human health and the environment could be disastrous. Thirty five years after the Clean Water Act became law, ANP explores why our fish are changing sex and our water contains rocket fuel, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals. Polluters dump about 240 million pounds of toxins into our waterways each year, and the long-term effects on human health and the envi... more
-
How Clean Is Clean Coal? | American News Project
In a single year, less than one in 100,000 Americans contract a rare form of blood cancer. In Pennsylvania coal country, the rate is nearly five times higher. Many suspect "clean" coal is the cause. As the 2008 presidential candidates promote the potential of clean coal as an alternative fuel source, and as Congress prepares to debate energy legislation, ANP takes a look at the controversial practice of coal-ash dumping. An investigation brought to you in conjunction with our partner The Washington Independent. In a single year, less than one in 100,000 Americans contract a rare form of blood cancer. In Pennsylvania coal country, the rate is n... more
-
Bush: No greenhouse gas regulation under my watch
The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office, despite pressure from the Supreme Court and broad accord among senior federal officials that new regulation is appropriate now.
The Environmental Protection Agency plans to announce today that it will seek months of further public comment on the threat posed by global warming to human health and welfare -- a matter that federal climate experts and international scientists have repeatedly said should be urgently addressed The Bush administration has decided not to take any new steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions before the president leaves office,... more -
EPA knocks $900,000 off value of a life
WASHINGTON - It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth what it used to be.
Each American is now valued at $6.9 million by the EPA in figuring out the costs/benefits of certain rulemaking — that's nearly $1 million less than five years ago.
The "value of a statistical life" is $6.9 million in today's dollars, the Environmental Protection Agency reckoned in May — a drop of nearly $1 million from just five years ago.
The Associated Press discovered the change after a review of cost-benefit analyses over more than a dozen years.
Though it may seem like a harmless bureaucratic recalculation, the devaluation has real consequences.
When drawing up regulations, government agencies put a value on human life and then weigh the costs versus the lifesaving benefits of a proposed rule. The less a life is worth to the government, the less the need for a regulation, such as tighter restrictions on pollution.
Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.
Some environmentalists accuse the Bush administration of changing the value to avoid tougher rules — a charge the EPA denies.
"It appears that they're cooking the books in regards to the value of life," said S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local air pollution regulators. "Those decisions are literally a matter of life and death."
WASHINGTON - It's not just the American dollar that's losing value. A government agency has decided that an American life isn't worth ... more -
Climate Change Testimony Cover-up
Cheney’s Office Sought to Change Climate Testimony
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.
The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Burnett's assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.
Boxer, in a news conference on Tuesday, went so far as to say White House press secretary Dana Perino had lied about why the White House had pushed for the deletions. That, in turn, prompted Perino to demand an apology from Boxer.
''I have never said such a thing about a fellow public servant, and I wouldn't if I didn't have all the facts,'' Perino said from Japan, where President Bush is attending a meeting of world economic leaders. ''I think I deserve an apology.''
Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.
''The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,''...
Cheney’s Office Sought to Change Climate Testimony ... more -
White House Accused of Cover UP
"This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
The EPA released in a report last December that "greenhouse gases may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public welfare," according to Jason Burnett, the agency's former associate deputy administrator.Such a finding would be an early step toward government regulation aimed at protecting public health.
Burnett, who resigned on June 9, told Boxer's committee the White House tried pressuring him to retract an e-mail on which he detailed the finding. Burnett said he refused.
Boxer said that unless EPA documents were released, it was likely that within the next two weeks her committee would try to subpoena the material. She did not know whether Republicans on the panel would block the effort.
{source http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN083010...
A CDC official who testified on the condition of Anonymity said that documents were altered by the White House. “It was eviscerated,” said a CDC official, familiar with both versions."
The official said that while it is customary for testimony to be changed in a White House review, these changes were particularly “heavy-handed,” with the document cut from its original 14 pages to four. It was six pages as presented to the Senate committee.
A new letter from former EPA administration official Jason Burnett, however, reveals that the White House was lying. The White House, at the urging of Cheney’s office, “requested that I work with CDC to remove from the testimony any discussion of the human health consequences of climate change,” wrote Burnett.
“CEQ [Council on Environmental Quality] contacted me to argue that I could best keep options open for the (EPA) administrator (on regulating carbon dioxide) if I would convince CDC to delete particular sections of their testimony,” Burnett said in the letter to Boxer.
{source http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/08/burnett-cheney/
"This cover-up is being directed from the White House and the office of the vice president," said Sen. Barbara Boxer, the California D... more -
Cheney aides "altered" CDC testimony
Members of Vice President Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official on the health threats posed by global warming.
Former EPA deputy associate administrator Jason K. Burnett said an official from Cheney's office edited out six pages from the testimony of Julie L. Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, last October.
Senator Barbara Boxer, who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said the administration feared that Gerberding's testimony would force it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels. The White House has opposed mandatory limits and insisted that voluntary measures and increased research are the best way to address the problem.
Frank O'Donnell, who heads the advocacy group Clean Air Watch, said the latest revelations confirm that the vice president has been steering the nation's environmental policy during President Bush's tenure.
"For years, we've suspected that Cheney was the puppeteer for administration policy on global warming," O'Donnell said. "This kiss-and-tell account appears to confirm the worst."
Members of Vice President Cheney's staff censored congressional testimony by a top federal official on the health threats posed by glo... more -
Cheney's Office Pushed for Trims to EPA Congressional Testimony
and the more becomes evident, the more it hurts. they dont care at all.
http://current.com/items/88796415_epa_denies_california...
then
http://current.com/items/89040046_white_house_invokes_e...
http://current.com/items/89050915_epa_silenced_by_white... and the more becomes evident, the more it hurts. they dont care at all. ... more -
Albuquerque Impressive Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions Earn Award
Albuquerque Earns U.S. EPA Climate Protection Award
Our friend Bill Brown reports great news about Albuquerque, New Mexico's reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
Albuquerque, New Mexico
"Since 1990, the City of Albuquerque has reduced greenhouse gas emissions from city operations by 58% and from city landfills by 73%. Albuquerque achieved First Place Honors from the U.S. Conference of Mayors' 2007 Climate Protection Awards. Albuquerque achieved these impressive reductions by increasing energy efficiency, implementing renewable energy projects, capturing landfill methane, and utilizing alternative fuels. 20% of the City's energy is derived from wind power; the City fleet ranks fourth in the nation on SustainLane's 2006 list of the 50 largest US cities whose city fleets use alternative fuels; five city swimming pools are installing solar heating systems; and the city landfill converts landfill gas into energy. Albuquerque established the nation's first municipal capital budget set-a-side specifically dedicated to energy reduction and renewable energy implementation. The City is currently working to reduce emissions even further: The City's new Energy Conservation Code requires new buildings and existing buildings undergoing significant alterations to be at least 30% more energy efficient, and Mayor Chavez recently issued an Executive Order ensuring that all new municipal buildings meet green building standards, and established a special forestry program to combat climate change by reducing the heat island effect, sequestering carbon dioxide, and buffering the effects of rapid climate change. "
__________________
Greetings, All -- Albuquerque, New Mexico receives a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Climate Protection Award for its impressive greenhouse gases emissions reductions. Arlington County, Virginia and Austin & Dallas, Texas also demonstrate leadership in climate protection.
Full details on all the award winners are available at: http://www.epa.gov/cppd/awards/2008winners.html
-- Bill Brown
www.nmglobalwarming.org
____________________________
From TouchArt.net and OneEarthBlog.blogspot.com.
Albuquerque Earns U.S. EPA Climate Protection Award ... more -
Pentagon fights EPA on pollution cleanup
The Defense Department, the nation's biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort Meade and two other military bases where the EPA says dumped chemicals pose "imminent and substantial" dangers to public health and the environment.
The Pentagon has also declined to sign agreements required by law that cover 12 other military sites on the Superfund list of the most polluted places in the country. The contracts would spell out a remediation plan, set schedules, and allow the EPA to oversee the work and assess penalties if milestones are missed.
The actions are part of a standoff between the Pentagon and environmental regulators that has been building during the Bush administration, leaving the EPA in a legal limbo as it addresses growing concerns about contaminants on military bases that are seeping into drinking water aquifers and soil. The Defense Department, the nation's biggest polluter, is resisting orders from the Environmental Protection Agency to clean up Fort M... more -
Appeals court sets no deadline for EPA on global warming
A federal appeals court refused Thursday to make a resistant Bush administration speed up a decision on whether greenhouse gases and global warming threaten public health and welfare.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia denied a petition by 17 states and several environmental groups asking it to order the Environmental Protection Agency to make that determination within 60 days.
Such a finding is a necessary first step to regulating carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from motor vehicle tailpipes and the smokestacks of refineries, power plants and factories. The Supreme Court more than a year ago ruled that the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, a step President Bush has repeatedly refused to take.
Instead, EPA is expected to issue a proposal in coming weeks that seeks public comment on a range of options the agency could take to control greenhouse gases under current law. It will take no position on whether carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be regulated, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.
``We are pleased the Circuit court recognized the agency's approach,'' said Timothy Lyons, deputy press secretary for EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson. ``The advanced notice for proposed rulemaking ... will allow for public input on the broad range of fundamental issues involved in regulating greenhouse gases.''
That proposal is expected to be a step backward from a finding the agency sent via e-mail to the White House last December concluding that greenhouse gases do endanger public health and welfare, and should be controlled.
snip
The latest proposal due out from EPA is undergoing more modifications from the White House, sources familiar with the negotiations said.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, we know all about the White House and its "modifications" regarding climate change. This is why it is not a political issue. People waiting for the federal government to do anything about this of any substance will be greatly disappointed. A federal appeals court refused Thursday to make a resistant Bush administration speed up a decision on whether greenhouse gases and g... more -
EPA proposes allowing coal plants to be built near national parks
Critics fear the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will adopt a rule in the waning days of the Bush administration that will make it easier to build coal-fired power plants near national parks.
The proposed change, pending since last June, comes as the utility industry moves into its biggest building boom in coal-fueled power plants in decades. To meet growing electricity needs, more than 20 plants are under construction in 14 states and more than 100 are in various stages of planning.
Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the third-ranking Republican in the Senate, vowed in an interview with The Associated Press to push Congress to overrule the EPA if it enacts the rule, perhaps as early as this summer.
The new rule would change the way states, the EPA and others calculate the impact of a new pollution source, like a coal plant, on a park's maximum pollution load, said John Bunyak of the National Park Service's Air Resources Division in Denver. Instead of weighing peak periods of pollution, the new rule would use annual averages.
Don Barger, southern regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association, compared it to a person sticking one hand in a block of ice and the other in a fire.
"Your average temperature is just fine, but your hands are not," he said. "You are getting some real impact there."
As an example, he said air quality in Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the country's most-visited national park with more than 9 million visitors a year, recently reached an "orange alert" pollution warning. The park straddles the Tennessee-North Carolina border.
When that happens, "the park is getting hammered. People in the park are getting hammered. Plants in the park are getting hammered," Barger said. "It doesn't matter where it averages out some other time. You have a family from Ohio on vacation. It is the only time they are going to be there. What views can they see? What air are they breathing?"
EPA spokeswoman Cathy Milbourn said the rule is part of an EPA program to prevent air quality degradation in national parks and would not change the level of emissions allowed in clean-air areas.
But in a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, Alexander writes that the National Park Service and the EPA's own regional air quality experts have determined the proposal would result in undercounting of actual pollution sources.
Alexander wrote that the National Park Service says the rule "provides the lowest possible degree of protection" for 156 so-called Class 1 areas that include the country's most revered national parks and preserves, from Acadia in Maine to Yellowstone in Wyoming.
Critics fear the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will adopt a rule in the waning days of the Bush administration that will make i... more -
White House invokes executive privilege in EPA inquiry
"I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president" -from the article.
This article is announcing that President Bush used a special rule to prevent his EPA appointees from handing over questionable documents to an investigation into why they denied the State of California permission to implement its own vehicle emission standards. Standards stricter than the EPA's own.
The first question you should be asking yourself is: why would the federal government want to block a state's right to enact stricter pollution standards? Los Angeles is one of the most vehicle-choked, smoggy cities in America. Our state government is acting in the best interests of its citizens. Why block them?
The second question, especially for Republican party members out there (all three of you on Current.com) is this: State's rights. Isn't that a major tenet of the Republican party? That states should be able to decide for themselves when appropriate? Small government?
Here you have California making a major effort to REDUCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS -- that means reduce air pollution and global warming -- and the Bush administration blocks it.
Why?
When we try to get to the bottom of this, we find George W. Bush invoking a special rule: "executive priviledge" to keep the documents secret.
Smells fishy.
Smells like corruption. "I don't think we've had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president" -from the article. ... more -
White House asserts executive privilege in air-quality case
WASHINGTON — Setting up a constitutional showdown, the White House on Friday asserted executive privilege in denying a congressional request for thousands of pages of documents related to the federal government's rejection of California's efforts to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions. Congress is attempting to determine whether President Bush played a role in the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to deny California's request for permission to impose tougher air-quality regulations than federal law called for. California had been granted such waivers numerous times over the years, but the Bush administration delayed and then rejected its request for authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions. "I don’t think we’ve had a situation like this since Richard Nixon was president," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is conducting the investigation. An EPA official, Jason Burnett, has told committee investigators that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson had favored granting the waiver but denied it after meeting with White House officials. In testimony last month, Johnson refused to say whether he’d discussed the waiver request with Bush. Waxman canceled a contempt vote that had been scheduled for Friday morning against Johnson and White House official Susan Dudley after the White House informed him of its last-minute decision. Waxman said the two had refused to cooperate with his panel...
(Click on the link for the rest of the story)
WASHINGTON — Setting up a constitutional showdown, the White House on Friday asserted executive privilege in denying a congressional r... more
-
related topics
EPA
Contributors (179)
EPA
