House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (WA-04) delivered the following opening statement at today’s Full Committee oversight hearing entitled “The Status of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Responses to Committee Subpoenas and the Continued Lack of Transparency about Its Implementation and Enforcement of American Wildlife Laws, and Oversight of the Department of the Interior’s Solicitor’s Office.”

“In regards to oversight, it’s not only Congress’ right but our responsibility to hold the Executive Branch accountable for its actions and decisions.  In turn, we expect the Administration to be honest and transparent.  The reality is just the opposite.  The Obama Administration has consistently engaged in a deliberate pattern of slow-rolling its responses and purposely withholding information from Congress.

Today’s hearing will specifically examine examples of this stonewalling from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The Service has failed to comply with two subpoenas for documents.  One related to the Whitebluffs Bladderpod, the second on the Administration’s approach for enforcing wildlife laws, including the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 

Despite the issuance of subpoenas, the Department continues to withhold and redact documents.  Even worse, the Department is going out of its way to provide even less information to Congress than it is to others. 

Here are three distinct examples.

In December 2013, the Service provided the Committee copies of about 1,000 pages of documents. These were exact duplicates of what the Service had already provided to the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act.  Some of these documents were redacted while others were released in full to both the AP and the Committee.

One of those FOIA documents was this January 2013 email. Exhibit 1 in your packets. 

In March of this year, the Committee issued a subpoena seeking 55 specific unredacted documents and categories of other documents. In response, the Service issued another large document production.  It included the same January 2013 email (Exhibit 2).  Except this time it was redacted in several places, even though an unredacted version had already been provided to the news media and the Committee almost six months earlier.

In this second example (Exhibit 4) on the left is a document provided to the AP and the Committee under FOIA. It contains partial redactions.  We issued a subpoena for the unredacted document, and received the document on the right – even more redacted than the first. 

Either the Administration is incompetent or it is going out of its way to expend time and money to withhold information from Congress.

In this third example (Exhibit 5), the document on the left was released to a bird conservation group under FOIA.  Only the bottom part was redacted.  When the Service provided the same document to the Committee in June – almost the entire document was redacted.

In addition, the Service has released documents to this same bird group last year under FOIA that have NEVER been provided to the Committee – even though it was specifically covered in the parameters of the subpoena.

I would like to hear from Director Ashe today how he justifies such a blatant disregard for transparency and disrespect of Congress.  Is this what he means when he talks about being responsive and cooperating with congressional oversight?

The Interior Department has dragged its feet on every oversight issue this Committee has pursued.  It has purposefully sought ways to increase the burden, costs, and delays for responding to the Committee’s legitimate requests. 

Some claim that our requests are costly and burdensome.  However, it’s now evident that the Administration is wasting time and taxpayer dollars by going out of its way to redact documents that have already been released.   Most of their time and resources are spent figuring out which documents to purposely withhold.  Furthermore, oversight and transparency to the American taxpayers should not be considered a burden. 

We’ll also hear from the Department of the Interior Solicitor Hilary Tompkins.  The Solicitor’s Office is the legal advisor for the Department and decides which documents gets released or withheld from Congress. I intend to find out more today about the Solicitor’s involvement in redacting these documents.

There are other issues pertaining to the Solicitor’s Office that I would like to address.  Yesterday, the Committee released a report on the Department’s ethics program – identifying significant weaknesses.  Also, ahead of tomorrow’s hearing with Deputy Inspector General Mary Kendall, I would like to hear the Solicitor discuss the relationship and interaction with the Department’s Office of Inspector General.

The Administration’s response to the Committee’s oversight efforts has been downright shameful.  Their actions are unjustifiable and show blatant disrespect to the transparency they promised the American people.”

Either the Administration is incompetent or it is going out of its way to expend time and money to withhold information from Congress.

In this third example (Exhibit 5), the document on the left was released to a bird conservation group under FOIA.  Only the bottom part was redacted.  When the Service provided the same document to the Committee in June – almost the entire document was redacted."

###