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.
Comments