Adam Schiff Accuses EPA Nom Of Dropping Investigation Into Trump Donor To His Face

Forbes Breaking News

During a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) asked President Trump's nominee to be an Assistant Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Jeffrey Hall, who is currently acting Assistant Administrator, why the EPA dropped an investigation into GEO Group, a donor to Trump's campaign.

Transcript

00:00Senator Schiff. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hull, I want to know how EPA and DOJ came to the

00:06conclusion to drop the agency's complaint against GEO, a contractor that operates the ICE facility

00:13in Atalanto, California. My staff have personally visited this facility because Congress has a

00:19fundamental role in conducting oversight of private entities that receive federal contracts

00:23and awards. During the last administration, EPA found that the company had violated the law

00:291,137 times by failing to provide employees with personal protective equipment. The pesticide

00:36chemical known as HALT comes with a warning that says, quote, causes irreversible eye damage

00:43and skin burns, harmful if swallowed or absorbed through the skin. Do not get an eyes on skin or

00:50on clothing. The private prison company was facing $4 million in fines under the Federal Insecticide,

00:57Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act for irresponsible use of a chemical disinfectant that is hazardous

01:03to human health. But your agency dropped the case. A former EPA enforcement official called the Trump

01:10administration's choice to drop the case a, quote, complete surrender. So I want to know what happened

01:16here. The facility is my state, and I want to know why the EPA completely surrendered to this private

01:22prison company after a change in administration. So let me begin with one question. Are you aware

01:30that GEO Group gave President Trump's Super PAC $1 million and contributed $500,000 to his inauguration?

01:38Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to address that. And ranking member Whitehouse raised it

01:42in my meeting with him, so I'm prepared to walk through it. I do want to say up front, I was not

01:49involved in the decision-making. It was purely an EPA case because it was an administrative case

01:53going to an administrative adjudication. I am aware of that fact, or the general nature of those

01:59facts, not the specific dollar amounts now, based on reporting by ProPublica after the case had already

02:06been decided to be dismissed. And honestly, that's how I came to awareness of those facts.

02:10Okay, you became, just for clarity, you became aware of this from the ProPublica report after the

02:17decision was made. Yes, Senator. But do you know whether those who were involved in making the

02:21decision were aware that GEO was a major contributor to the tune of a million and a half dollars to

02:27President Trump or his committees? The decision was made by career management officials, and to my

02:34knowledge, they were not aware of any of those facts, nor did they enter the decision-making for that

02:37case. And do you know whether the White House had any communication with those responsible for the

02:43dismissal of the case? I do not specifically know, but I do not believe they did. And what is the basis

02:51of your speculation that you don't believe that they did? How would you know? Because I have talked

02:58with the career management officials. They didn't indicate that there was any other influence that was

03:03purely decided by those career management officials. Okay, well, having talked with them, did you discuss

03:09the president's contribution by the company to the president? I mentioned the fact that there was a

03:19ProPublica article on it, and they indicated that the career management official making that decision

03:25indicated he was not aware of it. So the person who made the decision to dismiss the case

03:30claim to you that he had no knowledge that GEO was a major contributor to the president or his

03:36committees? That is my understanding. Well, you said you had this conversation, so I don't want to

03:42ask your understanding. Is that what this person told you? Yes. And what is your view of the EPA

03:49dropping this case? What's the basis for this? So thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to discuss

03:55that because I think it's important to be able to explain that. The career management officials that

04:01took a look at this took a look at the facts and the law. And so on the law, they took a look at the

04:06legal risk, including to the FIFRA enforcement program from proceeding with the case on an

04:11administrative hearing, as well as the facts and the equities, and they appropriately decided to dismiss

04:16it. I think there was three. So in my understanding of just how I think about the case, I think there were

04:22three critical points. One is that the case was only about whether or not the gloves that were used

04:28by those employees were labeled consistently with the disinfectant, not whether or not anybody was

04:33harmed. That was not part of the FIFRA administrative adjudication case. Second, GEO Group had on its own

04:40gone out and gotten an independent laboratory to assess whether or not those gloves were protective

04:46and found that it was. And they had an expert witness willing to testify at the administrative hearing

04:50to that fact. And three, there was an article in the National Law Review that just came out yesterday

04:57indicating that EPA enforcement has not only continued, but stepped up against antimicrobial

05:02products that are mislabeled or unregistered. And I think those are the ones that are harmful.

05:08And if I could, one more question, Madam Chair.

05:101,137 violations. This wasn't as if there was a single episode or single use of a glove. Over what

05:22period of time were those 1,137 violations? And doesn't that indicate a pattern practice of willful

05:28disregard of the law? Senator, my understanding based on the complaint in the administrative case and not

05:35based on anything else is that it occurred sometime between 2021 and 2023. And that was just based

05:41on the fact that the gloves were used routinely in cleanings. And no, I don't think it demonstrates a pattern

05:47of practice of willful disregard of the law. Because again, the key question was whether or not those gloves

05:53were appropriate and for use with that disinfectant. And I think that was a contested factual issue. And I think

05:59it was appropriate that enforcement resources were not used to continue to prosecute that case.

06:04I thank you, Madam Chair.

06:09I just got to say, though, that

06:12to dismiss this case

06:16in light of the vast

06:18contributions

06:19and in contradiction to the

06:22efforts that were made in the previous administration

06:24does look like a complete surrender to me.

06:27And I hope you will respond to the document inquiries that were

06:31made by

06:32Sheldon Whitehouse. Thank you.

06:34Madam Chair, thank you.

Category

Transcript

Recommended