SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
October, 20 2016, 04:30pm EDT
Contact:
Adam Sarvana
(202) 225-6065 or (202) 578-6626
Ranking Member Grijalva Leads 49-Member Letter to EPA Chief Urging Fracking Review to Follow Expert Input on Water Risks
Ranking Member Raul M. Grijalva today sent a letter signed by 49 House Democrats urging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and her staff to follow the recommendations of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) before finalizing and publishing a congressionally mandated review of fracking's risks to drinking water.
WASHINGTON
Ranking Member Raul M. Grijalva today sent a letter signed by 49 House Democrats urging Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy and her staff to follow the recommendations of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) before finalizing and publishing a congressionally mandated review of fracking's risks to drinking water. In its recently released assessmentof a draft the Agency published in June 2015, the SAB highlighted multiple unsupported statements that downplayed fracking's potential drinking water impacts and said a final version should better reflect the available science.
As today's letter, available at https://bit.ly/2enorZa, states in part:
Of particular concern in this regard is the high-level conclusion statement [in the EPA draft] on page ES-6 that 'We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States.'"
The unsupported statement had an outsized impact on the EPA's communications about the draft Assessment Report, and on the ensuing media coverage. Indeed, the EPA's press release about the draft Assessment Report took the statement significantly further, saying, "hydraulic fracturing activities in the U.S. are carried out in a way that have [sic] not led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources." The final Assessment should clarify the statement to be consistent with the SAB recommendation to justify or delete it. [. . .] The [SAB] Review points out the draft Assessment Report's claim that spills from hydraulic fracturing do not pose a substantial risk to drinking water "is not supported or linked to data presented in the body of the draft Assessment Report."
The EPA document, formally the draft "Assessment Report of Potential Impacts to Drinking Water Resources from Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Natural Gas," is expected to be finalized in the coming months. When published, the document will represent the state of the science on fracking's drinking water impacts and, as the EPA says at a Frequently Asked Questions page, "will be an important resource for states, tribes, and industry to protect public health and drinking water resources more effectively."
Congress mandated the study in late 2009 in a bill formally titled the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010.
"American environmental science is second to none, and our environmental policies should reflect that," Grijalva said. "No matter what industry prefers or what the politics of the moment demand, our environmental standards have to be based on the best available information, and that's all we're asking for today."
In addition to Grijalva, the letter is signed by Democratic Reps. Polis; Schakowsky; Lee (CA); Langevin; Grayson; Lowenthal; Honda; Norton; McGovern; Napolitano; Connolly; Capps; Tsongas; Quigley; Cartwright; Velazquez; Nadler; Cummings; Farr; Beyer; Serrano; Edwards; Lieu; Huffman; Gutierrez; Schiff; Blumenauer; Pocan; Moulton; Payne, Jr.; Watson Coleman; Speier; Waters; Engel; Cleaver II; Chu; Conyers, Jr.; Murphy; C. Maloney; McCollum; Pingree; Hastings; Van Hollen; Keating; Wasserman Schultz; Jeffries; Rice; and Ellison.
LATEST NEWS
'This Is Outrageous': Trump VA to Eliminate Up to 35,000 Healthcare Jobs This Month
"It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized," said the advocacy group VoteVets.
Dec 15, 2025
Before the end of the year, the Trump administration is planning to eliminate up to 35,000 healthcare jobs at the Department of Veterans Affairs, a chronically understaffed agency that has already lost tens of thousands of employees to the White House's sweeping assault on the federal workforce.
The Washington Post reported over the weekend that the targeted positions—many of which are unfilled—include doctors, nurses, and support staff. A spokesperson for the VA, led by former Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.), described the jobs as "mostly Covid-era roles that are no longer necessary."
VA workers, veterans advocates, and a union representing hundreds of thousands of department employees disputed that characterization as the agency faces staff shortages across the country.
"We are all doing the work of others to compensate,” one VA employee told the Post. “The idea that relief isn’t coming is really, really disappointing.”
Thomas Dargon Jr., deputy general counsel of the American Federation of Government Employees, said remaining VA employees "are obviously going to be facing the brunt of any further job cuts or reorganization that results in employees having to do more work with less."
The advocacy organization VoteVets cast the job cuts as another step toward the longstanding GOP goal of privatizing the VA.
"This is outrageous," the group wrote on social media. "It is abundantly clear that Republicans and the Trump administration want to strangle the VA until it all gets privatized."
"We must expand the VA, not hollow it out."
News of the impending job cuts came months after the Trump administration moved to gut collective bargaining protections for many VA employees and as recent staffing cuts continued to hamper veterans' services nationwide.
"Wait times for new mental health appointments have increased sharply since January in my home state, Connecticut," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said during a Senate hearing earlier this month. "For example, the most recent data shows the current wait time for a new patient mental health appointment at the Orange VA Clinic in Connecticut—an outpatient facility specializing in mental health—is 208 days."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), ranking member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, said in a statement Sunday that "it is unacceptable that the US Department of Veterans Affairs plans to eliminate as many as 35,000 healthcare positions this month."
"This is especially outrageous given the reality that VA facilities in Vermont and across the country already face severe staffing challenges," said Sanders. "When someone puts their life on the line to defend this country in uniform, we in turn must provide them with the best quality healthcare available. These layoffs are unacceptable and must be reversed. We must expand the VA, not hollow it out. And I will do everything I can to make that happen."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Rebuked for Backing Trump's March Toward War With Venezuela
"The 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country," said one critic.
Dec 15, 2025
Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado, the winner of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, is taking criticism for lending support to US President Donald Trump's campaign of military aggression against her own country.
In an interview that aired on Sunday on CBS News' "Face the Nation," Machado praised Trump's policies of tightening economic sanctions and seizing oil tankers that had been docked at Venezuelan ports.
“Look, I absolutely support President Trump’s strategy, and we, the Venezuelan people, are very grateful to him and to his administration, because I believe he is a champion of freedom in this hemisphere," Machado told CBS News.
Machado elaborated that she supported Trump's actions because the Maduro government was "not a conventional dictatorship," but "a very complex criminal structure that has turned Venezuela into a safe haven of international crime and terrorist activities."
Trump's campaign against Venezuela has not only included sanctions and the seizing of an oil tanker, but a series of bombings of purported drug-trafficking vessels that many legal experts consider to be acts of murder.
Trump has also said that he would soon authorize strikes against purported drug traffickers on Venezuelan soil, even though he has received no congressional authorization to conduct such an operation against a sovereign nation.
Machado's embrace of Trump as he potentially positions the US to launch a regime-change war in Venezuela drew swift criticism from opponents of American imperialism.
SussexBylines columnist Ross McNally questioned whether someone who is going on the record to support military aggression against her own country was really the right choice to win the Nobel Peace Prize.
"The Nobel Committee's decision to give the Peace Prize to Machado is bizarre for several reasons," he explained. "Firstly, its description of Machado’s ‘tireless work promoting democratic rights’ ignores the fact that she supported the attempted coup against democratically elected President Hugo Chávez in 2002... Alongside her encouragement for Trump’s military escalation, this jars somewhat with the Committee’s description."
The Machado interview was also criticized by Venezuelan journalist Madelein Garcia, who argued in a post on X that it was ironic to see that "the 'Nobel Peace Prize' continues thanking the US for the maximum pressure against her own country."
Going Underground host Afshin Rattansi also excoriated the Nobel Committee for overlooking Machado's support of militarism when it decided to award her a prize intended for peacemakers.
"Nobel Farce Prize Winner Maria Corina Machado is not a freedom fighter, she’s a CIA asset and de facto spokeswoman for US corporations," he wrote. "Here she is smiling gleefully at the prospect of selling $1.7 trillion of infrastructure and resources should the US carry out regime change in Venezuela and install her in Miraflores, promising 'we have a massive privatisation program waiting for you.'"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressives Urge Passage of Bills to Stop Trump From Launching 'Forever War' in Venezuela
"Every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?"
Dec 15, 2025
With floor votes expected this week, top members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus are urging fellow lawmakers in the US House to back a pair of resolutions aimed at preventing President Donald Trump from launching an unauthorized war on Venezuela.
“As Trump once again threatens ‘land strikes on Venezuela,’ every US representative will face a simple, up-or-down choice on the House floor this week: Will you stand up for the Constitution and vote to stop Trump’s illegal warmaking or not?" said Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Chuy García (D-Ill.), respectively the deputy chair and the whip for the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). "This is not a partisan issue: Three in four Americans oppose a regime-change war to overthrow the Venezuelan government, including two-thirds of Republicans."
Trump's belligerent rhetoric and recent military action in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—including the illegal bombing of vessels and seizure of a Venezuelan oil tanker—are "driving us toward a catastrophic forever war in Venezuela," Omar and García warned, urging lawmakers to pass H.Con.Res. 61 and H.Con.Res. 64.
The first resolution, led by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), would require Trump to "remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities with any presidentially designated terrorist organization in the Western Hemisphere, unless authorized by a declaration of war or a specific congressional authorization for use of military force."
The other, introduced earlier this month by Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), is explicitly designed to prevent a direct US attack on Venezuela.
"Congress hereby directs the president to remove the use of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force," reads the measure, which is co-sponsored by two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Don Bacon (R-Neb.).
In their statement over the weekend, Omar and García said that "both Democrats and Republicans must send a strong message to the Trump administration: Only Congress can authorize offensive military force, not the president."
"Trump is deploying U.S. personnel to seize Venezuelan oil tankers in international waters. He has launched double-tap airstrikes killing capsized and defenseless individuals. Trump declared a no-fly zone on Venezuelan airspace, deployed F-18 fly-overs in the Gulf of Venezuela, and refused to rule out troop deployments, while threatening to overthrow heads of state across the region," the lawmakers said. "These are illegal hostilities that could destabilize the entire region and fuel mass migration. Congress must stop this unconstitutional military campaign by passing these War Powers Resolutions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular