"The reason we have focused on these is simple. We believe that environmental policy decisions have become far too partisan," Vitter wrote. "And we believe that the only way to change that and build consensus is through complete transparency - regarding the scientific data used in rulemaking, the full economic analyses required by law, settlement negotiations involving the EPA, and the like."

Vitter and all of the Republicans on the EPW Committee have been asking for responses to five transparency requests, four of which the EPA has stonewalled. Click here to view the requests.

The text of Vitter's letter is below. Click here for the PDF version.

Monday, May 13, 2013

The Honorable Bob Perciasepe, Acting Administrator
The Honorable Gina McCarthy, Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Perciasepe and Assistant Administrator McCarthy:

In an effort to try to make my meeting tomorrow afternoon with Bob as productive as possible, I want to underscore what Republican EPW Committee members are seeking.

It really comes down to this: The number 5. Openness. Transparency.

We are seeking progress related to our 5 key requests for openness and transparency at the EPA. (See attached, yet again.) 1-4 of these are explicitly required under current federal law, and 5 is well within your current power and authority.

These are the 5 transparency requests I made of Gina in my meeting with Gina on March 20, which were the only matters we discussed.

These are the 5 transparency requests I handed to Gina in writing at the conclusion of that meeting.

These are the 5 transparency requests that I detailed again in letters to Gina dated April 10 and April 16.

These are the 5 transparency requests that were the subject of my follow-up meeting with Bob on April 25th, which were the only matters we discussed.

These are the 5 transparency requests highlighted in our Republican letter to Chairman Boxer on May 9 regarding Gina's mark-up.

These are the 5 transparency requests, 4 of which EPA has dragged its feet and stonewalled on to date.

The reason we have focused on these is simple. We believe that environmental policy decisions have become far too partisan. And we believe that the only way to change that and build consensus is through complete transparency--regarding the scientific data used in rulemaking, the full economic analyses required by law, settlement negotiations involving the EPA, and the like.

EPA's recent record of hidden emails, stonewalling of FOIA requests, refusal to share scientific data, laughable cost-benefit analyses, and secretive "sue and settle" negotiations is not such a path forward.

I look forward to our meeting.

Sincerely,
David Vitter

Attachment
Cc: The Honorable Barbara Boxer

-30-