WATCH: At Schiff’s Request, EPA Administrator Zeldin Agrees to Turn Over Documents Detailing Cancellation of Congressional Grants

Washington, D.C. - Today, during an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) pushed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin on whether EPA conducted an individualized review of the hundreds of Congressionally appropriated grants that EPA illegally terminated - including several in California. These canceled projects were worth hundreds of millions of dollars and would have helped Californians reduce pollution in our air and water as well as reduce energy bills.

A court has previously found that EPA "failed to produce a single document" showing any individualized grant review of canceled EPA grants. Following Schiff's questioning, Zeldin committed that he would provide documentation of the individualized review of all canceled grants to the Senate committee.

Watch the full clip HERE. Download the clip HERE.

Key Excerpt:

Schiff: Administrator, when you testified before the committee last year, as well as in your written responses, you were adamant that EPA conducted an "individualized review" of every single one of the hundreds of grants that EPA canceled. A great many were in California, but a great many were in other states as well. You told the committee, in response to Senator Whitehouse's questioning, "I conducted an individual review of everything." You told the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "I was the one who made the decision. I made the decision after doing an individual review of every grant specifically." And I sent a question for the record in which you responded, "EPA terminated grants on an individualized basis." So, my question is, these grant cancelations are being challenged in court. Recently, Judge Richard Gergel of the US District Court in the district of South Carolina ruled that EPA likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act because EPA, "failed to produce a single document showing any individualized review of plaintiffs' grants." So, my question is, do you stand by your testimony that you did an individualized review of all of the grants?

Zeldin: 1,000% and actually on these the litigation cases, while I'm not allowed to talk about individual litigation, what I can reference is - because Senator Whitehouse pointed to it when we were here last year - there are declarations that were submitted. Now Senator Whitehouse only pointed to one declaration of one case with while ignoring the other declarations of that case as well as all the other declarations of all the other cases. I'd point you to the declaration submitted by career staffers who are involved in the individualized review, the other declarations of political appointees who were part of a process for individualized reviews. Every single grant went through an individualized review. I was reviewing a sheet that had everything individualized on it when making those decisions.

Schiff: Then why - was that sheet provided to the court? Why would the court find, if that was the case -

Zeldin: There are judges every single day across this country that reach decisions that show -

Schiff: So was this information provided to the court?

Zeldin: I can't, I can't speak to anything beyond the declarations -

Schiff: Let me just ask this last question -

Zeldin: - however, I would imagine it was.

Schiff: Will you provide that documentation to this committee, showing the individualized review?

Zeldin: Sure. The document, if it's not part of what was submitted to the court, which I don't know why it would have been -

Schiff: You'll submit it to the committee?

Zeldin: Yeah. I'd be surprised - I'm actually looking at something that was submitted to the court that looks pretty darn individualized.

Schiff: Well, as long as you're committed to submitting it to this committee, I will yield back.

Zeldin: I have it right here.

Schiff: Thank you.

###