Scott Pruitt, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, showed up for two long hearings on Capitol Hill Thursday bracing for a beating from lawmakers.
3 big takeaways from the Scott Pruitt hearings on Capitol Hill
The EPA administrator was pressed on his $43,000 phone booth, treatment of whistleblowers, and regulatory rollbacks.
Umair Irfan was a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News.
Ethics concerns about Pruitt cropped up almost as soon as he was sworn in last year, but new allegations, ranging from renting a cheap condo from the wife of a lobbyist who represented clients at the EPA to sidelining employees who objected to his expensive travel, have piled up in the past three months. Now environmental groups, Democrats, and a few Republicans are calling for his immediate resignation.
The frustration has even reached the White House, with President Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, admonishing Pruitt over his scandals and some staffers saying they expect Pruitt to be fired soon. There are now at least 10 investigations of Pruitt’s activities across the White House, Congress, the Government Accountability Office, and the EPA’s inspector general.
Pruitt was well aware of the whispers that he could be the next official in the Trump administration to be fired going into Thursday’s hearings, which were originally intended to go over the EPA’s budget for the upcoming fiscal year. He came prepared with a 23-page set of talking points (which were published by Politico) to address the avalanche of accusations. The table of contents is telling:
EPA
And over the course of several hours of questioning in front of the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s subcommittee on environment and the House Appropriations Committee, three key themes emerged as Pruitt swung back at his accusers and fought to keep his job.
Pruitt tried to blame his staff for his $43,000 phone booth
When pressed on who was responsible for some of the more egregious decisions at the EPA, Pruitt blamed his staff and claimed ignorance, like using a provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act to get huge pay raises for close aides after the White House declined to grant the pay bumps.
“There was delegation given in my authority,” Pruitt said, noting that the decision was made by his chief of staff Ryan Jackson. “I was not at any time aware of the amount or the process that was used.”
As for the $43,000 phone booth built in his office that the Government Accountability Office determined violated two federal laws, Pruitt said he didn’t know what was going on there either.
“I was not aware of the approval of the $43,000, and if I had known about it, Congressman, I would not have approved it,” Pruitt told Rep. Tony Cárdenas (D-CA).
Pruitt also briefly hinted at contrition during his testimony. “I’m not afraid to admit that there has been a learning process,” he said.
But he blamed the media and political opponents for all the scrutiny around his scandals. “A lie doesn’t become truth just because it appears on the front page of the newspaper,” he said. “Those that attack the EPA and attack me are those that want to derail and attack the administration’s priorities.”
Democrats told Pruitt he should resign to his face multiple times
The hearing gave lawmakers on both sides a chance to vent their frustration with Pruitt as an administrator, but Democrats on the committees went for the jugular.
“Your conduct as administrator has demonstrated a lack of respect for American taxpayers,” said Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY). “You were never fit for this job.”
Under questioning, Pruitt admitted that the soundproof phone booth he had built in his office is not a sensitive compartmented information facility, and when asked why he didn’t use the two SCIFs already installed at the EPA’s headquarters, Pruitt said, “They aren’t close to my office.”
But it wasn’t just Pruitt’s scandals. Democratic lawmakers were upset with Pruitt’s ongoing rollbacks of environmental regulations. Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) questioned Pruitt aggressively about the agency’s decision not to ban methylene chloride, a toxic chemical found in paint strippers.
“You have brought secrecy, conflict of interest, and scandal to the EPA. In any other administration … you would be long gone by now,” said Pallone.
Other Democrats were alarmed by Pruitt’s statements on climate change, his proposal this week to institute new rules that would limit the science the agency can use, and the White House’s proposed budget for the EPA that would cut $2.58 billion, a 23 percent reduction compared to the last continuing resolution.
The EPA administrator still has allies willing to go easy on him
Some Republicans, like environment subcommittee chair Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL), did offer some tepid criticism of Pruitt, but only insofar as the scandals impeded his work at the agency.
“I consider much of this narrative to be a distraction, but one this committee cannot ignore,” Shimkus said.
But other Republicans offered a more full-throated defense and warmer sympathies for Pruitt’s deregulation work at the EPA.
“Mr. Pruitt, you’re not the first victim of Washington politics,” said Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX). “You’ve been attacked for flying first class. Was that illegal? It may look bad, but it’s not illegal.”
Similarly, Rep. David B. McKinley (R-WV) said the questions from Democrats were “a classic display of innuendo and McCarthyism.”
“I appreciate the fact that you’re respecting the rule of law, and I appreciate the good work of this administration,” Rep. Evan Jenkins (R-WV) told Pruitt.
Meanwhile, EPA employees protested outside the agency’s headquarters on Wednesday and activists waved signs reading “Mr. Corrupt” behind Pruitt during his morning hearing, another front in the “Boot Pruitt” campaign.
Which narrative takes root at the White House remains to be seen. And if it doesn’t play on Fox News tonight, it might not be seen at all.
See More:
