DOCSLIB.ORG

May 18, 2020 Administrator Andrew Wheeler U.S. Environmental

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
May 18, 2020 Administrator Andrew Wheeler U.S. Environmental May 18, 2020 Administrator Andrew Wheeler U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Via Regulations.gov to docket EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259 Cheryl A. Hawkins Office of the Science Advisor, Policy and Engagement (8104R) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Via email to [email protected] RE: Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council on “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science (Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking)” 85 Fed. Reg. 15396- 15406 (March 18, 2020), Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259 I. Introduction Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is a national, not-for-profit public-health and environmental advocacy organiZation whose purpose is to safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals, and the natural systems on which all life depends. NRDC has hundreds of thousands of members, all of whom depend on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect them from the harms of pollution. EPA’s supplemental proposal to the original proposed rule, “Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” 85 Fed. Reg. 15396 (March 18, 2020) (the “Supplemental Proposal”) would harm these members by limiting the types of science that EPA could use to protect the environment and public health. As described in detail below, the Supplemental Proposal, just like the Proposal, is an attack on science and violates the law. EPA should withdraw it immediately. NRDC previously submitted comments on August 15, 2018 opposing the original proposed rule.1 EPA’s Supplemental Proposal fails to address the fundamental flaws with the 1 Natural Resources Defense Council, “Comment Submitted by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Proposed Rule: Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science,” Docket No. EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-8283, Aug. 15, 2018 available at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2018-0259-8283. We incorporate those comments on the Proposal here. NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 40 W 20TH STREET | NEW YORK, NY | 10011 | T 212.727.2700 | F 212.727.1773 | NRDC.ORG Proposal, and the expansive scope of the Supplemental Proposal in comparison to the original Proposal introduces numerous serious errors, inconsistencies, and implementation issues. Because of these serious shortcomings and the lack of any sound legal or technical rationale, EPA should withdraw both the Proposal and Supplemental Proposal immediately. The Supplemental Proposal arbitrarily fails to address, much less explain, why prior EPA regulatory actions that relied upon studies, data, or other information did not reflect the “best available science” or why they were otherwise unreliable, despite failing to meet the Proposal’s or the Supplemental Proposal’s standards. It does not explain why all “data and models” should meet an arbitrary standard. The Supplemental Proposal, like the Proposal, is a “solution” in search of a problem. EPA, other federal agencies, EPA scientific advisory bodies, the National Academy of Science (NAS), and EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) have for decades repeatedly and consistently relied upon the best available, peer-reviewed, independent, credible scientific studies—for which the underlying data are not publicly available—and found that science to be valid, reliable, trustworthy, and a reflection of the “best available science” that EPA claims as its concern in the Supplemental Proposal. The Supplemental Proposal arbitrarily excludes prior research, studies, and data that do not meet its applicability criteria based on concerns that were never announced to researchers or the public, or deemed necessary by any government agency, at the time the research, studies, or data-gathering were undertaken. The Supplemental Proposal, like the initial Proposal, is strikingly at odds with those scientific practices and their history, with nothing in the rulemaking docket to support casting aspersions on the practices or history sufficient to prohibit EPA from considering such science. EPA has unsurprisingly failed to cite a single statute that provides any basis for the original proposal or Supplemental Proposal. What statutes EPA does cite conflict with the Supplemental Proposal, because they require EPA either to consider the best available science (which may be based on data that cannot be made public) or to regulate to protect public health and the environment (which cannot be done if critical science is ignored simply because the underlying data cannot be made public). Similarly, none of the other sources EPA cites provide legal or logical support for the Proposal. Most fatal to the Supplemental Proposal’s legal viability is the Agency’s reference to its “housekeeping authority” as authority for the rulemaking. As discussed extensively below, the Supplemental Proposal is far from an “internal rule of agency procedure,” as it directly impacts how the Agency carries out its statutory mandates. EPA’s reliance on supposed housekeeping authority as the justification for this far-reaching attack on science at the Agency underscores the baselessness of the rulemaking and proves it must be withdrawn. The Supplemental Proposal also suffers from a host of other problems: its definitions are flawed and vague; it expands the scope of the original Proposal without justification; it is an unexplained reversal from prior agency policy and best practice; it handles confidential business 2 information and determinations about research quality in a capricious manner; it treats other types of agency actions inconsistently; it applies retroactively to studies completed before the rule goes into effect; it fails to analyze the disproportionate effect of the rule on people of color, low-income people, and children; it allows for arbitrary exemptions on a case-by-case basis; it places significant new burdens on researchers and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Moreover, EPA did not seek adequate consultation on the Supplemental Proposal from the Science Advisory Board, and EPA has only attempted to partially clarify a small portion of key implementation questions in private briefings to Congress, entirely depriving the general public of an opportunity to meaningfully comment on EPA’s apparent plans. As explained throughout these comments, EPA’s agenda, as reflected in the Proposal and reiterated in the Supplemental Proposal, is not greater public trust or understanding; rather, the Proposal and the Supplemental Proposal aim to censor science and studies whose underlying data are not publicly available and may not be made publicly available as a matter of law or other agreement. The Supplemental Proposal, like the Proposal, is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of the Agency’s discretion, and should be withdrawn. II. Background: The Tobacco Industry and Congressional Origins for the Censored Science Rulemaking The instant rulemaking would force EPA to ignore health science and studies needed to protect Americans and our environment—when those studies use confidential patient or business information. This strategy is drawn directly from the tobacco industry playbook, and from failed Republican-sponsored congressional legislation meant to prevent federal agencies from adopting more protective safeguards for Americans’ health, air & water quality, climate change and the environment. These attacks have specifically targeted the science EPA has used, historically, to adopt more protective safeguards for air, water, the climate, Americans’ health and the environment more broadly. In 1996, a tobacco industry lawyer named Chris Horner wrote his clients at RJ Reynolds Tobacco a memo later uncovered in tobacco lawsuits.2 He outlined a strategy to “reform agency science” to prevent EPA from targeting Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Darkly, the strategy also was designed to target EPA regulation of mercury from power plants, haZardous waste, methylene chloride, dioxins and deadly fine particle pollution. Id. pg. 2. The heart of Horner’s strategy focused on agency “process,” rather than “scientific substance” or pollutants or safeguards. This emphasis recogniZed that the tobacco industry stood “virtually no chance of affecting change” on the scientific substance and safeguards against [Environmental Tobacco Smoke], and so, designed an approach “of addressing process rather than scientific substance, ….” Id. Like the tobacco industry strategy, the focus on “internal 2 See Memo from Chris Horner (12/23/1996), attached. 3 agency process” 85 Fed. Reg. at 15,398, rather than “substance,” Id., is central to EPA’s proposed Censored Science rulemaking. In his letter, the tobacco lawyer advised that the process should demand that science and studies submitted to EPA should be ‘transparent’ and ‘able to be reproduced’—or else EPA would not consider them. Ex.1, pg. 4. This ban would happen even if science and studies relied on confidential medical, business or proprietary information that could not be made public, by law or legal agreements with third parties. The result would be that EPA could not rely on critical science to protect Americans and the environment. Mr. Horner worked for the tobacco industry, at the time, along with a former tobacco lobbyist, named Steve Milloy. Mr. Milloy has boasted that this EPA rulemaking is his “brainchild and pet project driving the communists craZy.”3 He tweeted about the proposed Censored Science rule that, “[I]f finaliZed, EPA will no longer be able
Load more

Recommended publications
  • For Immediate Release News Release 2017-6 January 20, 2017
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR DOUGLAS S. CHIN ATTORNEY GENERAL For Immediate Release News Release 2017-6 January 20, 2017 ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG CHIN VOICES OPPOSITION TO TWO PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS HONOLULU – Attorney General Doug Chin has joined five other state Attorneys General opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for United States Attorney General and has joined eight other state Attorneys General opposing the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to become Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The letter opposing Senator Sessions’ nomination to lead the United States Department of Justice notes, “The Justice Department seal reads ‘Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur’: ‘Who prosecutes on behalf of justice.’ As state attorneys general—the chief law officers of our respective states—we regularly work with the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Sessions has stood for policies antithetical to this core mission of the Justice Department. For these reasons, we believe him to be unqualified for the role of United States Attorney General. We join the thousands of individuals and organizations that have voiced their opposition to Senator Sessions’ appointment and respectfully urge you to reject his nomination.” The letter cites Senator Sessions’ refusal to protect racial minorities and vulnerable populations and his rejection of bipartisan criminal justice reforms. The letter opposing Attorney General Pruitt’s nomination to head the EPA says in part, “As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt made it a priority to attack the rules— promulgated by EPA to implement Congressional mandates—that EPA is charged with enforcing.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Leader Scott Pruitt Resigns After Scandals Engulf His Agency Tom Dichristopher CNBC, 6 July 2018
    EPA leader Scott Pruitt resigns after scandals engulf his agency Tom DiChristopher CNBC, 6 July 2018 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned on Thursday after allegations of workplace retaliation, wasteful spending and self-dealing mounted over several months. The flow of negative headlines has been almost constant since it was revealed Pruitt rented a Capitol Hill condo linked to an energy lobbyist on favorable terms. Pruitt stoked anger among Democrats and environmentalists for leading Trump's charge to roll back Obama-era regulations and casting doubt on humanity's role in climate change. Scott Pruitt's polarizing tenure as head of the Environmental Protection Agency has come to an end. President Donald Trump tweeted on Thursday that he has accepted Pruitt's resignation. Trump said that the agency's deputy administrator and former coal industry lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, will become the acting head of EPA. The departure follows months of scrutiny that gathered momentum following reports that Pruitt had rented a Capitol Hill condominium linked to an energy lobbyist on favorable terms. The revelation exacerbated concerns about the high cost of Pruitt's travel and security detail and triggered a flood of allegations that Pruitt fostered a culture of workplace retaliation, wasteful spending and self-dealing at EPA. The steady flow of negative news stories prompted multiple government investigators to open several inquiries into Pruitt. His EPA now faces about a dozen probes into its spending, ethics and policy decisions. "It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it as a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also because of the transformative work that is occurring," Pruitt said in his resignation letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks On
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks on Signing an Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth March 28, 2017 The President. Thank you. Shelley. Thank you very much. I guess they like what we're about to sign, huh? Right? I knew they were going to like this one. Well, thank you very much. I very much appreciate it. And thank you to our great Vice President, Mike Pence. I'm thrilled that everybody could be here with us today. I want to give special thanks to Administrator Scott Pruitt, Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Secretary Rick Perry for your remarks. I told Rick, I said, run it the way you ran Texas—[laughter]—because this is going to be a great operation. And he did a great job, and we're honored to have all three. And I'm really honored to have our Vice President, because Mike Pence has been outstanding. Hasn't he been outstanding? Together, this group is going to do a truly great job for our country. We have a very, very impressive group here to celebrate the start of a new era in American energy and production and job creation. The action I'm taking today will eliminate Federal overreach, restore economic freedom, and allow our companies and our workers to thrive, compete, and succeed on a level playing field for the first time in a long time, fellas. It's been a long time. I'm not just talking about 8 years; we're talking about a lot longer than 8 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement
    Capitol Insurrection At Center Of Conservative Movement: At Least 43 Governors, Senators And Members Of Congress Have Ties To Groups That Planned January 6th Rally And Riots. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, a rally in support of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election “turned deadly” when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s urging. Even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely broke with Trump, has explicitly said, “the mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.” These “other powerful people” include a vast array of conservative officials and Trump allies who perpetuated false claims of fraud in the 2020 election after enjoying critical support from the groups that fueled the Capitol riot. In fact, at least 43 current Governors or elected federal office holders have direct ties to the groups that helped plan the January 6th rally, along with at least 15 members of Donald Trump’s former administration. The links that these Trump-allied officials have to these groups are: Turning Point Action, an arm of right-wing Turning Point USA, claimed to send “80+ buses full of patriots” to the rally that led to the Capitol riot, claiming the event would be one of the most “consequential” in U.S. history. • The group spent over $1.5 million supporting Trump and his Georgia senate allies who claimed the election was fraudulent and supported efforts to overturn it. • The organization hosted Trump at an event where he claimed Democrats were trying to “rig the election,” which he said would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” • At a Turning Point USA event, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • March 29, 2011 Hon. Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S
    ALAN WILSON ATTORNEY GENERAL March 29, 2011 Hon. Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Headquarters – Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Jackson: As state Attorneys General, we are writing to ask the EPA to defer its program of greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations so that Congress can be given an opportunity to evaluate both the need and timing of such regulations. Such deferral is especially important to us given the disruption that the rapid implementation of the EPA program is causing to the state administrative agencies that we advise and the businesses those agencies have been tasked with regulating. As you know, litigation is now underway challenging various aspects of the GHG regulations, as well as the Endangerment Finding on which those regulations are based; however, our purpose in writing you is not to debate those particular issues. Indeed, those are issues on which all of us are not necessarily agreed. Instead, our purpose today is to ask that you exercise the discretion recognized by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), with respect to the timing of your regulations by deferring the GHG regulatory program. Such a deferral would have at least three major advantages: 1. A deferral would allow the current Congress a full opportunity to review the EPA’s Endangerment Finding and to determine the best course for our nation to take. The Clean Air Act, under which the EPA has adopted its regulations, is not an effective or efficient vehicle to deal with an issue like the worldwide emissions of GHG’s, and the issue calls for full debate by our elected representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking out Las Vegas”
    LCV (0:30 TV – ENGLISH): “LOOKING OUT LAS VEGAS” VISUAL AUDIO RESEARCH BACKUP Child pours water To protect our water Heller Helped Introduce Bill Prohibiting EPA AdministrAtor From from faucet. in Nevada, we need Finalizing And Implementing Any Guidance Aimed At Strengthening leaders looking out The Clean WAter Act. In March 2012, Heller was an original Capitol Building. for us in Washington. cosponsor of the Preserve The Waters Of The United States Act, Senator Heller. But Senator Heller introduced by Sen. John Barrasso. The bill “prohibits the Secretary of co-sponsored a bill the Army and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Image of S.2245, weakening the Clean Agency (EPA) from: (1) finalizing the proposed guidance described in showing Heller’s Water Act. the notice of availability and request for comments entitled ‘EPA and cosponsorship. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act’; or (2) using such SENATOR HELLER guidance, or any substantially similar guidance, as the basis for any WEAKEN CLEAN decision regarding the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control WATER BILL Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) or any rulemaking. [The bill also] provides that the use of such guidance as the basis for Source: S.2245, any rule shall be grounds for vacation of such rule.” [S.2245, 3/8/12] 3/8/12 Heller: Bill ThreAtens PersonAl Property Rights And DiscourAges Economic Growth. In a March 2012 joint press release with bill sponsor Sen. John Barrasso, Heller said, “As Americans struggle in this anemic economy, the Administration continues to stifle job creation at every turn.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Clean up Scott Pruitt's Mess at EPA (Opinion) - CNN
    7/6/2018 How to clean up Scott Pruitt's mess at EPA (Opinion) - CNN + HOopwinio nto clean up Scott Pruitt's mess at EPA Live TV By William W. Buzbee Updated 5:29 PM ET, Thu July 5, 2018 0:27 / 2:04 Source: CNN EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigns 02:04 Editor's Note: William W. Buzbee is a professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, a founding member-scholar at the Center for Progressive Reform, and the author of "Fighting Westway: Citizen Activism, Environmental Law, and the Regulatory War that Transformed New York City." The opinions expressed in this commentary are his. (CNN) — Soon a new administrator will assume the reins at the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The current adminstrator (until today) Scott Pruitt, has resigned after an avalanche of ethical, fiscal, and managerial lapses, plus reported intolerance for dissent. Amid all the noise, a crucial question must be addressed: How did Pruitt do at his job, and what should the EPA's future head learn from his track record? Somewhat paradoxically, the late Justice Antonin Scalia's writings provide illumination. Pruitt had professed admiration for Scalia, a conservative, describing him as a stalwart defender of the law and constitutional fundamentals. But it is exactly Scalia's emphasis on fealty to the law that highlights Pruitt's failure at his post. Pruitt has demonstrated an unwavering disrespect for the requirements of statutes and https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/15/opinions/pruitt-epa-scalia-opinion-buzbee/index.html 1/4 7/6/2018 How to clean up Scott Pruitt's mess at EPA (Opinion) - CNN William Buzbee judicial precedents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Senate Confirmed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Climate-Change Denier, As the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
    CONFIRMING SCOTT PRUITT AS EPA ADMINISTRATOR Passed: 52-46 SUMMARY: The Senate confirmed Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a climate-change denier, as the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. (February 17, 2017, Roll Call No. 71) BACKGROUND: The Environmental Protection Agency is responsible for protecting air, water and wildlife for all of us. EPA administrators typically understand and value the importance of the agency’s mission of protecting the public’s health. Scott Pruitt served as an Oklahoma state senator from 1998 to 2006, was elected as the attorney general of Oklahoma in November of 2010 and served two terms as president of the Republican Attorneys General Association. He is a known anti-EPA advocate and climate-change denier and has fought against critical EPA rules such as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule and the Clean Power Plan (CPP). Pruitt called the CPP unlawful and overreaching and said that it would greatly increase the price of electricity for American consumers by closing coal-fired power plants. Funded by fossil fuel industries since 2002, Pruitt sent letters drafted by energy lobbyists to the EPA, Department of the Interior and even President Obama opposing EPA regulations and rules, including methane regulations. He also targeted agencies within the Obama administration, claiming certain decisions were rooted in an anti-fossil fuel agenda. The Senate confirmed the nomination of Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, the same agency he has spent years fighting. He advanced his career with the help of the coal and oil industries and has already shown he does not believe in the EPA’s mission.
    [Show full text]
  • Trump Administration Key Policy Personnel Updated: February 5, 2017 Positions NOT Subject to Senate Confirmation in Italics ______
    Trump Administration Key Policy Personnel Updated: February 5, 2017 Positions NOT subject to Senate confirmation in italics ______________________________________________________________________________________________ White House Chief of Staff: Reince Priebus Priebus is the former Chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC). He previously worked as chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin. He has a long history in Republican politics as a grassroots volunteer. He worked his way up through the ranks of the Republican Party of Wisconsin as 1st Congressional District Chairman, State Party Treasurer, First Vice Chair, and eventually State Party Chairman. In 2009, he served as General Counsel to the RNC, a role in which he volunteered his time. White House Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor: Stephen Bannon Bannon worked as the campaign CEO for Trump’s presidential campaign. He is the Executive Chairman of Breitbart News Network, LLC and the Chief Executive Officer of American Vantage Media Corporation and Affinity Media. Mr. Bannon is also a Partner of Societe Gererale, a talent management company in the entertainment business. He has served as the Chief Executive Officer and President of Genius Products, Inc. since February 2005. Attorney General: Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) Sen. Sessions began his legal career as a practicing attorney in Russellville, Alabama, and then in Mobile. Following a two- year stint as Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of Alabama, Sessions was nominated by President Reagan in 1981 and confirmed by the Senate to serve as the United States Attorney for Alabama’s Southern District, a position he held for 12 years. Sessions was elected Alabama Attorney General in 1995, serving as the state’s chief legal officer until 1997, when he entered the United States Senate.
    [Show full text]
  • A Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Inaction
    A Record of Abuse, Corruption, and Inaction House Judiciary Democrats’ Efforts to Document the Failings of the Trump Administration & Lack of Oversight by the Republican Majority Interim Report From President Donald Trump’s Election to the Present Prepared by the Democratic Staff of the House Judiciary Committee Updated 11/9/18 TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary………………………………………………………………2 Letters to the Administration…………………………………………….............4 Letters to the Department of Justice Inspector General………………………28 Letters to House Judiciary Committee and House Majority Leadership...….30 Letters to Outside Entities………………………………………………………38 Requests for a Minority Day of Hearings………………………………………40 Committee Discharge Letters (Pursuant to House Rule XI, Clause (C)(2))…40 Floor Discharge Petitions ……………………………………………………….40 Motions to Move Into Executive Session..……………………………………...41 Oversight-Related Press Conferences…………………………………………..42 Oversight-Related Forums……………………………………………………....44 Oversight-Related Reports……………………………………………………...47 Government Accountability Office Report Requests……………………….…49 Resolutions of Inquiry…………………………………………………………...50 Censure Resolutions……………………………………………………………..51 Oversight-Related Bills and Resolutions……………………………………….52 Lawsuits………………………………………………………………………….65 Amicus Briefs……………………………………………………………………68 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY House Judiciary Committee Democrats are committed to pursuing active oversight of the executive branch. In ordinary times, under the leadership of either party, the Committee would have focused its
    [Show full text]
  • National Tracking Poll 180444
    National Tracking Poll Project: 180444 N Size: 1991 Registered Voters Margin of Error: 2% Topline Report April 26 - May 01, 2018 Question Response Frequency Percentage P1 Now, generally speaking, would you say that things in the country are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? Right Direction 793 40% Wrong Track 98 60% Q172 Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President? Strongly Approve 439 22% Somewhat Approve 404 20% Somewhat Disapprove 282 4% Strongly Disapprove 780 39% Don’t Know / No Opinion 86 4% Q172NET Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as President? Total Approve 843 42% Total Dissaprove 062 53% Don’t Know / No Opinion 86 4% P3 Now, thinking about your vote, what would you say is the top set of issues on your mind when you cast your vote for federal offices such as U.S. Senate or Congress? Economic Issues 593 30% Security Issues 379 9% Health Care Issues 305 5% Senior’s Issues 3 6% Women’s Issues 77 4% Education Issues 35 7% Energy Issues 80 4% Other 6% POL1_1 Who do you trust more to handle each of the following issues? The economy Democrats in Congress 750 38% Republicans in Congress 86 4% Don’t Know / No Opinion 425 2% POL1_4 Who do you trust more to handle each of the following issues? Jobs Democrats in Congress 763 38% Republicans in Congress 836 42% Don’t Know / No Opinion 39 20% Page | 1 Question Response Frequency Percentage POL1_5 Who do you trust more to handle each of the following issues? Health care Democrats
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Democrats Release New Compilation of Over 100 Oversight Letters President Trump Refuses to Answer
    For Immediate Release Contact: Miranda Margowsky (Stabenow) JUNE 7, 2017 202-224-1154 Senate Democrats Release New Compilation of Over 100 Oversight Letters President Trump Refuses to Answer WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Democratic Policy and Communications Committee today released a compilation of over 100 oversight letters the Trump Administration has refused to answer in response to congressional inquiries sent since January of this year. This release follows reports that the Trump Administration instructed federal agencies to ignore Democratic oversight requests. It also follows an opinion released by the Department of Justice that reverses previous Executive Branch policy and argues individual Members of Congress do not have the authority to conduct oversight. “Since President Trump has taken office, his Administration has failed to respond to over 100 critical request for information on issues ranging from national security to health care to the economy,” said Senator Stabenow, Chair of the Democratic Policy and Communication Committee. “Senators from both parties have a Constitutional responsibility to conduct oversight and ensure the Executive Branch is working on behalf of the American people. The White House should reverse its directive and the Trump Administration should immediately respond to requests for information from all Senators.” “President Trump and his Administration have broken so many promises, hired so many swamp creatures, and are playing so fast and loose with ethics rules, that it’s no surprise that they would try
    [Show full text]