On the Comments of former EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance Assistant Administrator J.P. Suarez in the October issue of Environmental Law Reporter (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/pubs/erl_article.pdf) Mr. Suarez's comments confirm that the Bush Administration efforts to reform Clean Air Act rules were a calculated campaign to undercut enforcement actions against power companies. This adds to the mountain of evidence that the Bush Administration's has been more concerned with protecting the profits of power companies than protecting public health. When it became clear that Congress would not go forward with the Administration's plan to dismantle the Clean Air Act, the White House did all that it could to halt enforcing the law. In addition, Mr. Suarez's statements directly contradict the testimony of senior officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Justice when they testified before Congress. His account is especially compelling because Mr. Suarez is the first Bush Administration political appointee to come forward and publicly admit that the White House was intentionally undermining federal enforcement of the Clean Air Act. In light of these comments we must hold new hearings, demand straight answers and explore disciplinary action against those who have misled Congress. Highlights of Suarez's comments from ELR: Page 7: As Suarez, EPA's Assistant Administrator at the OECA during parts of 2002 and 2003, perceived it: "It became clear to me, fairly early on, that the NSR reform was focused solely on power plants. It also became clear to me, during my tenure at EPA, that the goal of NSR reform was to prevent any enforcement case from going forward. Some people thought the [NSR power plant enforcement initiative] should never have been brought. The reform was really designed to thwart our ability to do it." Page 10: In the words of Suarez: "We [at EPA] do not have enough extramural dollars. I actually think it is at a crisis stage. The last budget I worked on, EPA [enforcement] was going to be in a position where we had people and not enough dollars to support them. We did not have money for travel, for technical support, for investigations, for depositions [and] for experts. . . . I can tell you that there is going to be a major collapse if that is not rectified in terms of our ability to get work done."