Scott Pruitt, Trump’s nominee for EPA administrator, had his confirmation hearing yesterday. What follows is a blow-by-blow account of the event.
In the morning, there were reports of people paid to stand in line to keep protesters out, and as the hearing started, Standing Rock protesters were arrested outside the room. We hoped senators would be just as willing to stand up to #PollutingPruitt.
Senator Barrasso, introducing Pruitt, praises his supposed efforts to fight polluters. But the only specific action Barrasso could name was the oil clean-up “double dipping” issue. He doesn’t list other environmental protection actions from Pruitt because…well, of 700 press releases from Pruitt’s time as OK AG, zero involve actions to protect the environment.
Delaware’s Senator Tom Carper gives a quick history lesson about the importance of the EPA, the old “burning rivers, smoggy cities” bit about how bad pollution was in the days before the EPA. In addition to the sea level rise already flooding parking lots in Delaware, how fishing now comes with a mercury warning, and the lead-laden troubles of Flint, Michigan, Carper focuses on cross-state pollution. It’s a not-so-subtle warning of things to come under Pruitt, whose states-first approach wouldn’t be sufficient to handle interstate pollution.
Carper concludes with a “damning statement” from former EPA admin Christine Todd Whitman, hoping that today’s event can prove her wrong.
Sen. Inhofe is next to speak, and Barrasso praises him. (No mention of the infamous snowball.) With his mild drawl and heavy rasp, Inhofe follows Barrasso’s lead and heaps praise on Pruitt’s protection of polluter profits. “He’s a hero of the scenic rivers,” Inhofe (falsely) says before being interrupted by a protester shouting as she’s removed. According to MoJo’s Rebecca Leber, the protesters are “unlike anything I saw at Tillerson’s” hearing.
Inhofe takes a moment to attack the outgoing administration as radical- one that at least 60% of Americans agree with. In the same breath, he praises the fossil fuel industry as protectors of the environment.
In his opening statement, Pruitt admits, like other cabinet nominations, that the climate is changing and humans play some role. But of course, he stops short of accepting the consensus and falls back to the now common position that the extent to which we’re changing the climate and what should be done about it remain questions for debate.
Now on to the questions! Senator Carper quotes Donald Trump’s statements about dismantling the EPA. Will the things Trump have said “just go away” under Pruitt? Given Pruitt’s dismantling of the environment unit in the AG office and the lack of answers to questions given in advance of the hearing, Carper justifies the concerns of the protesters faintly heard outside.
[Continued after the jump]
On mercury, Carper tries to get a yes or no answer as to whether Pruitt’s lawsuits that have opposed the mercury regulation do so because they oppose the fact that mercury is…well…bad. Pruitt tries to dodge but Carper doesn’t let him, continuing to nail him on the issue. Pruitt admits, eventually, that mercury is something the EPA should regulate.
As Inhofe takes the floor, scientists declare 2016 the hottest year on record. (For more on that, check out our new video.)
Moving on, Inhofe tosses Pruitt a couple of softballs regarding water negotiations Pruitt has led.
Now it’s Senator Whitehouse’s turn, video available here. He gets right into it- “The oceans off of our state are warming, due to fossil-fuel-driven climate change… I see nothing in your career to suggest you care one bit about” protecting those hurt by warming. He then brings out a poster of the main industries who have funded Pruitt and his groups. Pruitt isn’t sure if they maxed out contributions, or even if they’ve contributed at all. Whitehouse educates him a little about the hundreds of thousands of dollars Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA) received from the fossil fuel industry under Pruitt’s leadership.
But did he solicit any of that funding? Pruitt’s “unable to confirm” that funding, and refused to directly answer if he solicited money. Pruitt said he didn’t ask money of Koch, Devon, or ExxonMobil, at least not “on behalf of RAGA.”
Whitehouse points out that Pruitt declared no conflicts of interest, yet has not disclosed any of his solicitations for his “Rule of Law Defense Fund.” Will Pruitt disclose his role in raising funds for it? Pruitt demurred and passed the buck before defending himself by pointing out he’s suing ExxonMobil. (Again, this is the double-dipping case, which as Whitehouse points out “has nothing to do with the environment.”)
Without directly addressing Pruitt’s conflicts of interest, Barrasso introduces a WSJ story about Hillary Clinton raising more fossil fuel funds than Trump and a Politico story that quotes someone alleging that Pruitt’s problems are actually a “fishing expedition” led by those with funding from “far left” groups… This pattern of Pruitt dodging tough questions then being defended by Barrasso will continue throughout the day.
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin’s turn brings us to the Chesapeake Bay cleanup plan, with the senator asking Pruitt if he’d support the federal role in the plan that he sued to stop. Pruitt, as he will do throughout the day, talks about legal precedent and process instead of environmental protection. He will commit to supporting the policy now, though, which he praises as being what these things are supposed to look like.
Cardin turns to drinking water- does Pruitt believe there is any safe level of lead in water, particularly for the young? Pruitt hasn’t “looked at the scientific research”, and would be “concerned” about any level of lead. That the potential head of the EPA doesn’t already know there’s no safe level of lead is one of many concerning issues to come up throughout the day.
Specifically asked about Flint, Pruitt says that more should have been done by the EPA, and done more quickly, since it was an emergency situation. Cardin points out that Pruitt has participated in “several lawsuits” about how local agencies should have been in charge, and Pruitt confirms that there is a role for the EPA to play.
It’s 11:06, and it’s Republican Senator Deb Fischer from Nebraska’s turn now. Her question starts by listing how her state’s been “really affected” by EPA’s actions, so this seems like it will be another set of softballs. It is. Moving on…
Democrat Jeff Merkley brings us back to reality with methane. Findings of methane’s warming potential were not well received by the fossil fuel industry, and Merkley references Devon’s letter on Pruitt’s letterhead. Merkley flat out asks if Pruitt’s aware of methane’s global warming potential. Pruitt says yes. How concerned is he, on a 1–10 scale? Pruitt is concerned, though not “highly” concerned.
Pruitt refuses to acknowledge that all but 37 of the thousand-some words in the aforementioned letter to the EPA about the methane rule were written by Devon Energy, but defends it. “Did you copy the letter virtually word for word?” Merkley takes Pruitt’s dodging as an affirmative.
“You used your office as a direct extension of a company,” Merkley states plainly. Then he asks, “do you acknowledge you presented a private oil company’s position and not that of the people?” “I disagree,” Pruitt responded, laying out his standard talking point about how the industry is his constituency. Merkley hammers him on it. Pruitt retreats to process and cost-benefit analysis language. Pruitt claims to have consulted with other regulators on the issue, Merkley asks for the details to prove it.
“Why do you need an outside oil company to draft a letter for you when you have 250 employees?” Merkley asks as he runs out of time. Barrasso offers some time so Pruitt can answer. Pruitt claims that the Devon Energy letter wasn’t particular to Devon, but to the industry as a whole.
Republican Jerry Moran from Kansas lessens the tension with a softball about WOTUS, accusing the EPA of going it alone on the issue.
New Jersey’s Cory Booker’s turn brings us back to real questions. Pruitt’s record of 14 lawsuits against the EPA, challenging clean air and clean water rules, are entered into the record. Booker rattles off Pruitt’s opposition to various regulations to make sure Pruitt is familiar with them, and his record of siding with polluting industries against the EPA.
Booker finally gets to his question- “Do you know how many kids in Oklahoma, roughly, have asthma?” “I do not, senator.” Booker points out that over 111,000, more than one in ten kids in OK, have asthma- one of the highest rates in the country. How many letters has Pruitt sent on those children’s behalf?
“Did you let any of those children write letters on your letterhead?” (With rhetoric like this, no wonder people are speculating about a Booker 2020 presidential run.)
Pruitt avoids the question (shock!) as Booker’s time ends.
Barrasso submits multiple opinions from Oklahoma praising Pruitt to the record. He then points out that Obama’s EPA administrators sued the EPA during the George W. Bush administration- though likely they weren’t acting on industry’s behalf, but to get the EPA to act.
Senator Rounds, a Republican from Wyoming, continues the pattern of GOP senators asking Pruitt to finish defending himself. This time it’s in reference to cross-state pollution, which was brought up as a side-note by Booker. Pruitt believes it’s an important statute EPA should enforce, a statement belied by his litigation to the contrary.
After some softballs from Rounds, Massachusetts Senator Edward Markey (D) asks Pruitt if he believes climate change is a hoax, like Trump. Pruitt does not.
With that on the record, Markey moves to the eight ongoing lawsuits Pruitt has against the EPA. Pruitt’s said he would recuse himself from these issues for one year as mandated by law. But will he recuse himself not just for one year, “but for the entirety of the time you’re administrator of the EPA?” Channeling his inner Rick Perry, Pruitt dances around the question, but when pressed by Markey, he takes the Tillerson route and points to the ethical council as the decision maker on the issue.
Markey insists that Pruitt should unequivocally recuse himself from anything dealing with the lawsuits he’s filed. If not, it will be “a fundamental conflict of interest.” Markey hits Pruitt with a quote sure to end up in the coverage: “It’s not just the fox guarding the henhouse, it’s the fox destroying the henhouse.”
To sooth the pain from that burn and defend Pruitt, Barrasso reads from a letter from the Office of Government Ethics saying Pruitt’s in compliance with the conflict of interest rules.
Now it’s time for Joni Ernst, a Republican from Iowa. She jumps into the ethanol issue, a big deal for her farm state. Pruitt responds to a question about the Renewable Fuel Standard with “process” and free market language but ultimately commits to the RFS, sort of. This issue will return…
Then Ernst tells Pruitt that her constituents feel like the EPA is out to get them, particularly on the WOTUS rule. How would he help the EPA regain trust? (Trust that in reality, was never actually lost…)
Pruitt answers with his well-rehearsed “grow the economy, protect environment, cooperative federalism” spiel.
Illinois Democrat Tammy Duckworth asks about the RFS too, particularly Pruitt’s siding with fossil fuel companies that “slammed” the RFS. Which position does he actually take, the “nice sounding, but ultimately vague” one he’s making here to placate Ernst and herself, or the anti-RFS one he took with fossil fuel companies? “Which specific actions has EPA taken since 2007 while administering the RFS that is not keeping with congressional intent?” Pruitt fails to give a satisfactory answer, and Duckworth slams his doublespeak for leaving opposition open as an option.
Duckworth finishes her time nailing Pruitt on the need for biofuels, pointing out that she’s “already been to a war for oil in the Middle East” so Pruitt’s potential opposition to corn-based fuels troubles her.
Barrasso rides to the rescue again, introducing into the record a letter from the American Farm Bureau and a former Arkansas AG.
Arkansas Republican John Boozman is up now, with an EPA-critical softball about “coercive federalism” and restoring “cooperative federalism” that would cede EPA authority to the states. How would Pruitt change the EPA-state dynamic? More niceties from Pruitt before Boozman accuses the EPA of operating on “political ideology” instead of “sound science.” Can we expect the EPA to be more transparent under Pruitt? (Who has obfuscated on his fossil fuel funding earlier today in response to Senator Whitehouse?)
Pruitt’s response is that there’s a reason you study the impact of rules and regulations on “all Americans” and more lip service to process and transparency.
New California Senator and former AG Kamala Harris gets technical about whether or not Pruitt has acted independently (as opposed to acting in response to a request). She asks about Pruitt’s batting average on his lawsuits against the EPA- Pruitt guesses his success rate is around .300. Her calculations are more around .142…
Does Pruitt have the discretion to recuse himself from cases he’s involved with? Pruitt, after significant badgering, finally admits he has the discretion, setting up further questions about whether or not he’d exercise that discretion if not explicitly instructed to do so. But Harris changes tack to the fuel efficiency standards, and California’s authority to do so independently of the EPA. Will he uphold that standard? He’ll review it, Pruitt responds, not knowing his intention. She considered that lack of commitment “unacceptable.”
Harris continues by asking if Pruitt can “name a few instances that you have filed a lawsuit against a corporate entity?” He names one, the poultry farming case. But that was hardly something for him to brag about, considering his predecessor filed the case, and when Pruitt came in, he “put on the brakes.”
Barrasso ends Harris’s time, introducing a letter that initially sounds like it is from Mr. Strong, an Oklahoma retiree and vice-chair of the OK Sierra Club chapter, praising Pruitt. It’s unclear what that letter really is, because Sierra Club’s Oklahoma chapter president very clearly opposes Pruitt.
Back to Republican fluff questions, now from Alaska’s Dan Sullivan. He asks yet another question about regaining trust in the EPA and “cooperative federalism.” “Did you come up with that?” Sullivan asks, using this valuable time to let Pruitt explain Civics 101 and the separation of powers.
Then Sullivan really turns up the heat with an incredibly hard-hitting pair of questions: “Do you care about Oklahoma’s children?” and “Do you care about the environment?” Pruitt says of course to the first, and repeats the process language for the second. Sullivan defends the oil industry, citing the American Petroleum Institute’s job figures for Oklahoma. About the gas station attendants and oil drillers, Sullivan asks “Are these people bad actors?” “Are they evil people?”
At this point the C-Span stream asks if I’m still watching and forces a reload, so sadly I can not report whether or not Pruitt believes the fossil fuel industry he so consistently defends is evil.
When the stream returns, New York’s Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is talking about Hurricane Sandy. Does Pruitt believe sea levels are rising?
Pruitt acknowledges that the EPA has obligations to address the CO2 issue, but has to follow the process. Gillibrand goes back to the details of sea level rise, “because lives are at stake.” Turning to his record of lawsuits defending businesses and not protecting people, she asks about mercury.
What does Pruitt think should be done? He reaffirmed that the EPA should regulate it, but should follow the “cost-benefit obligations.” Again, this reaffirms that hiding behind process-jargon is Pruitt’s go-to answer for dodging questions about human health.
After Pruitt’s weaving, Senator Carper introduces into the record the fact that the only example Pruitt could give of defending the public against polluters, his egg case, was started by his predecessor.
Barrasso responds by citing the Cornwall Alliance, a climate change denying group that uses Christianity as a front to advance its pro-polluter agenda.
Then Mississippi’s Senator Roger Wicker reiterates the previously mentioned WSJ story about Clinton raising more oil and gas money than Trump. Because when you can’t defend someone’s record, false equivalences make for convenient distractions. More anti-EPA softballs follow.
Next up is Senator Sanders, whose office has received “a great deal” of concerned comments about Pruitt’s nomination. He asks Pruitt about the 97% consensus that climate change is real, man-made, and already causing devastating problems. Does Pruitt “believe climate change is caused by carbon emissions, by human activity?”
Yes, Pruitt believes climate is changing and humans are contributing “in some manner.”
Sanders presses that the consensus is that humans are the fundamental reason. Pruitt responds that he’s still uncertain about the “precision” with which we can measure things, and dodges direct questions about why the climate is changing. Pruitt responds with process about the EPA administrator being beholden to Congressional intent. Pruitt says that his views are immaterial. Sanders scoffs, asking “do you believe we have to transform our energy?” Pruitt says that “the administrator has an important role” in regulating CO2.
Sanders also talked about Oklahoma’s frack-quakes. “Can you point me to any opinion that you wrote, any enforcement action you took against the companies injecting waste fracking water?” Pruitt says he’s “very concerned” about it, and Sanders interrupts to ask what public statements Pruitt has made about it. Pruitt has acknowledged his concern, but is clearly not making any declarative statement that would alleviate Sander’s concerns.
Sanders finishes his time saying, “If that’s the kind of EPA administrator you’re going to be, you won’t get my vote.” It certainly seems like that’s the feeling of the Dem senators thus far.
Inhofe then introduces the debunked WSJ op-ed, “The Myth of the 98 Percent” followed by Barrasso introducing Jeb Bush’s CNN op-ed praising Pruitt and Barrasso’s own report, “Red Tape Making Americans Sick”, about the health impacts of unemployment.
With that, it’s time to break for lunch.
Upon returning, Barrasso asks if there’s anything Pruitt would like to clarify. Pruitt circled back to the “double-dipping” issue, pointing out that he’s brought cases against two other oil companies as well. But this is an administrative issue, not environmental one. Barrasso asks about environmental litigation Pruitt’s brought. Pruitt insists that he brought the case, and mentions some other work they’ve done, but no specifics.
Barrasso continues by attacking Lisa Jackson’s pseudonymous email account. Will Pruitt commit to not taking such actions? Yes, Pruitt answered, because transparency is important.
Now for real questions. Senator Tom Carper brings up mercury emissions from fossil fuel power plants, and the fish warnings that result. If Pruitt believes the EPA shouldn’t move forward on MATS, what should states do and what are the health impacts of mercury emissions?
Pruitt claims he hasn’t stated that the EPA shouldn’t regulate mercury, instead his polluter defense is all about process. The table of contents of the suit determines that to be false.
Sounds like afternoon questions will take the same shape as the morning round- softballs from the GOP, hardballs from Dems, balking from Pruitt.
Carper talks about the money to be made in clean energy, and Pruitt mentions Oklahoma’s wind power and the utility questions that come before him. Unmentioned is his siding with coal over clean energy.
In her second round of questioning, West Virginia senator Shelley Moore Capito points out the coal miners who have been invited, helmets and all. (They appear to be outnumbered by Mom’s Clean Air Force t-shirts.) There’s some fluff about listening and leading. Eventually she returns to Pruitt’s EPA-antagonism, asking him to explain the suits, specifically the process questions.
The next few minutes consist of Pruitt offering the same jargon he’s been using all day to try and excuse his polluter protection efforts.
Senator Whitehouse now asks about potential conflicts of interest, and the “dark money operation that supports the Republican Attorney General Association.” “If you had raised significant amount of money for the Rule of Law fund…MIGHT that place you in a conflict of interest?”
Pruitt shifts responsibility to the EPA’s ethics office. Whitehouse presses that he’s asking for Pruitt’s opinion, noting that the EPA rules predate Citizens United, so is outdated and isn’t designed to catch this. “Might it be a conflict of interest, in your definition of the term,” if Pruitt had raised money from companies that might be regulated by the EPA?
Pruitt says he wasn’t in charge, and again defers back to the EPA’s ethics office. Whitehouse is having none of it, bringing the question as a hypothetical question to see if Pruitt would acknowledge the appearance of conflict of interest.
Pruitt stonewalls. Whitehouse is agitated. This goes back and forth for a painful length of time, running out Whitehouse’s time with no resolution.
Barrasso enters into the record the AP story of the EPA’s ethics office clearing Pruitt. The same clearance Whitehouse just explained is not sufficient to address the “dark money” at issue here.
Senator John Boozman accuses “the other side” of raising millions in dark money before asking about “over-regulation.” No doubt Pruitt is relieved for this chance to catch his breath, wipe his brow and recite a probably scripted answer from a friendly senator.
Now Senator Merkley, who begins his second round of questioning by asking Pruitt to identify an asthma inhaler. This is the basis for his question about the EPA’s ozone regulations (since ozone triggers asthma attacks), which was challenged by Pruitt. “Was the basis for your challenge cost-benefit analysis?” It was not, Pruitt replied. So what was? In a muddled reply, Pruitt gives more vague answers regarding the attainability standard.
Merkley lists off the hundreds of thousands of children who would be saved from asthma attacks and deaths, according to estimates, by this regulation. Merkley hammers Pruitt for fighting “so hard for the oil industry, and not on behalf of the people of Oklahoma.” Pruitt’s answer is that it’s more important to get those already not in attainment than to lower the life-saving standard. This may be in conflict with SCOTUS rulings.
The senator from Oregon disagrees- “none of the standards are attained when they’re set, that’s the point.” Merkley finishes strong, “Valuing the profits over people is a character question.”
As Merkley’s time ends, Barrasso submits a report from the fossil fuel funded Black Chamber of Commerce about the job losses associated from EPA regulations.
Senator Fischer of Nebraska asks what Pruitt will do to make sure the “EPA sticks to its core mission” and protect those who have been “subject to bullying” by the EPA. Nothing worth discussing in this exchange.
Next in the rotation is Senator Cardin, who asks about WOTUS rules and how Pruitt defines “navigable waters”, which in turn determines the EPA’s jurisdiction. Pruitt doesn’t really answer, instead pushing the question to Congress. Which Cardin explains is the real problem, since Congress hasn’t decided. So, “What did the [Obama] administration do wrong?”
Pruitt’s answer is unclear, and Cardin attempts to get more specificity. Pruitt punts, at least three times in a row, before Cardin moves to fracking.
What should the federal role be, versus the states? Pruitt’s response is that it’s not a new process and Oklahoma has been regulating it for many years. Specifically on earthquakes, Pruitt “shares” the concerns of the Oklahoma officials in charge of overseeing the issue.
Now it’s Inhofe’s turn, and explains PACs and defends Pruitt’s fossil fuel funding. Inhofe puts Tom Steyer’s funding promises into the record in a bald attempt to distract from the conflict of interest questions at play with Pruitt. Carper helpfully points out that since those donations were disclosed, they’re not dark money at all. Inhofe cedes that point, chuckling.
After a rambling story about COP and Copenhagen and the Endangerment Finding and Lisa Jackson and the IPCC, Inhofe brings up Climategate. He alleges it’s a “lie about what causes global warming.” Inhofe quotes an unnamed scientist and other coverage about the fraud. He wants that to be part of the record. He does not talk about the numerous exonerations.
Inhofe’s question, eventually is about fuel standards, which Pruitt assures Inhofe he’ll review. Then it’s Booker’s turn again, and he brings up the Illinois River issue and the poultry case with Arkansas. Booker “really dug into this” and went deep into the details. Booker laid out the history of the case, eventually getting to the point- Pruitt let polluters off the hook for another three years, instead of enforcing compliance.
Barrasso, predictably at this point, introduces an op-ed supporting Pruitt and lobs a softball.
Senator Markey wastes no time, and gets back to the Endangerment Finding that “carbon pollution poses a danger to America.” Will Pruitt promise to keep that finding on the books?
Pruitt answers that the finding is “the law of the land” and as the EPA administrator he will uphold it. He says there’s nothing he’s aware of that would cause him to revisit that finding. An important reassurance.
After talking about fuel standards, Markey asks Pruitt to support the right of states to do more to fight climate change than the federal government, turning Pruitt’s states’ rights position on its head. Pruitt then dips into legalese, stumbling over the word “adjudicated” as he refuses to make any concrete statement. Does he support the California waiver law? He respects it as something the Administrator has to do, but says it’d be his responsibility to review it. Which Markey hears as “undo” it, and proceeds to artfully call out Pruitt’s hypocrisy on the “double standard” that states like Oklahoma should have the right to resist protecting the environment, but Massachusetts’ right to set more stringent policies needs “review.”
In response to that damaging line of questioning, Barrasso introduces another document about the negative effects of regulations on jobs and such.
Now it’s Senator Ernst of Iowa to give a friendly question- will you oppose changes to the RFS standard’s point of obligation? Pruitt again refuses to “prejudge” the situation.
She then brings up a chart of the state of Iowa, showing that via the expanded definition of the WOTUS rule, 97% of Iowa would be counted as a Water of the United States. After a lot of Ernst misrepresenting the rule, Pruitt indicates that he’d do something about it.
Duckworth asks a yes or no question about the RFS, to which Pruitt does not give a yes or no answer. Instead he balks based on the comment period still being open and they get into a back and forth about congressional intent. Duckworth question, Pruitt contends, can only be answered once Pruitt is confirmed and has reviewed comments and everything else. For some reason this logic doesn’t apply to the WOTUS rule.
Duckworth is still “very concerned.” But she moves on to safe drinking water, specifically Flint Michigan. Duckworth says she was “flabbergasted” that Pruitt doesn’t know about safe levels of lead in drinking water. “You’re seeking to be the EPA administrator, and you haven’t looked into the issue of lead in our water supply?” She seemed incredulous and offended, asking “Have you even studied the Flint water crisis in preparing for this hearing?”
Pruitt again blames the EPA for what happened in Flint.
Barrasso enters into the record another piece of praise for Pruitt and a series of softballs are thrown by Boozman, Sullivan and Moran.
So ends round two of questions.
Round three begins with Barrasso talking about TSCA reform, and Pruitt’s commitment to implementing it. Yes, Pruitt assures Barrasso, as administrator he will make it a priority (again displaying how Pruitt’s supposed commitment to states’ rights is flimsy.) Barrasso then turns to the EPA’s handling of the gold mine spill, will Pruitt review the issue to help those that have been harmed? Yes, Pruitt replies.
Delaware’s Senator Carper goes on a lengthy tangent about the WOTUS lawmaking, in something of a rebuttal to Ernst’s questionable WOTUS question. With 23 seconds remaining, Carper gets to his question- while Pruitt’s been suing the EPA over ozone standards, 17 counties in Oklahoma have failed clean air tests. What did Pruitt do about it?
Pruitt responds with his belief that counties should move to attainment, and Carper quickly cuts him off to ask- “What did you do about it?” Pruitt, as you can guess by now, does not provide a clear answer and shifts responsibility elsewhere, indicating that he’s done nothing.
Saving Pruitt from further embarrassment on his inaction is Inhofe, who asks Pruitt to share his thoughts on sue and settle, long a thorn in polluter’s sides.
Senator Whitehouse, up next, counters by pointing out that regulations should also count benefits. For once, Whitehouse and Pruitt agree on something. Then Whitehouse gets back to business- Pruitt’s lack of transparency regarding fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund, RAGA, etc. Whitehouse points out that a RAGA agenda lists private meetings with Murray Energy and Southern Company, both funders of Pruitt affiliates. The conflict of interest run around begins again, with Whitehouse unsuccessfully trying to get Pruitt to acknowledge even a hypothetical possibility for the appearance of impropriety.
Then Whitehouse hits Pruitt for slow walking FOIA requests for emails between his office and the companies that fund his groups. After over 740 days, Pruitt’s office has yet to comply. Pruitt blames the compliance officers, passing the buck yet again.
Are these 3,000 emails perhaps relevant to this hearing, Whitehouse asks? Pruitt’s answer is, yet again, that he’ll defer to the EPA ethics council. Whitehouse finishes his time by pointing out that since he hasn’t disclosed this info to the ethics council, they can’t rule on it.
Barrasso enters into the record support for Pruitt from Oklahoma lawmakers, and a complaint about the egg case showing Pruitt to be the one who filed.
Senator Capito’s third round of questioning revolves around the states’ rights issue, when a state isn’t doing enough to protect its people. Pruitt agrees that the EPA has a duty to step in.
Senator Merkley resumes by commenting on Inhofe’s submission of “Climategate,” introducing a UCS debunking of Inhofe’s favorite myth. Inhofe doesn’t like that. Merkley then notes that the National Black Chamber of Commerce is funded by the Kochs and ExxonMobil, and that the NAACP takes the opposite stance endorsing the Clean Power Plan. He then submits documents showing Native Americans and Latinos are very concerned about Pruitt’s nomination.
Getting to a question for Pruitt, Merkley brings up the “if 97 doctors say you have cancer…” line of thought. After establishing the validity of the science, Pruitt acknowledges that the Endangerment Finding and Mass v. EPA would compel him to act. But, asks Merkley, does Pruitt actually accept this or will he only do the legally obligated minimum? Pruitt’s response is more of the process argument that clearly fails to alleviate Merkley’s concerns.
For once, Barrasso doesn’t submit some fluffy opinion supporting Pruitt before moving to the next question from Senator Mike Rounds from South Dakota, who asks how Pruitt would make agency transparency and record keeping better. Pruitt indicates that he would do better, but doesn’t say how. Rounds asks about the role of the administrator. Pruitt responds with his favorite answer: boring process talk.
Now Senator Booker’s back up. He attempts to clarify the Illinois River issue, with a poster-sized blow-up of the agreement between Arkansas and Oklahoma. To Booker, it looks like Pruitt suspended a binding rule of law for three years to allow for more pollution to take place. Pruitt countered that he was concerned that Arkansas wasn’t going to live up to that standard, to which Booker responded that “literally six days after your so-called historic agreement,” Tyson wrote to the EPA “delighted” about Pruitt suspending the regulation implementation. Booker drove home the point that Pruitt’s win probably wasn’t a win for people or planet, because “Industry is really happy about this.”
After Pruitt attempted to defend himself, Booker remained unmoved in his opinion that Pruitt represents polluters not people.
Senator Boozman of Arkansas only has one question. He addressed Senator Booker to defend Arkansas’s lack of pollution yet at the same time their inability to meet the standard required by the agreement. Similarly Senator Ernst is out of questions as 4:30 nears, but still wants to make a comment about WOTUS overreach.
Senator Markey still has questions, though. He calls out Pruitt for criticizing sue and settle but then having the attorneys general in the Clean Power Plan suit try and do exactly that under President Trump. Will Pruitt recuse himself from this issue? Pruitt simply reasserts that sue and settle is bad, but then when pressed says he won’t pursue sue and settle if appointed. But will he recuse himself? Pruitt points for yet another time, to the EPA ethics council instead of answering the question himself. Markey is not pleased.
Markey then presents a bottle of Trump water and asks Pruitt to confirm that he will act to protect clean water supplies, particularly for low-income communities. Pruitt commits to that, and to making minority communities a priority.
Senator Sullivan’s final question deals with infrastructure, and Pruitt agrees that water infrastructure would be a priority.
Senator Whitehouse asks for a fourth round of questions, and Chairman Barrasso tells him to submit his remaining questions instead. With that, Carper reminds the chairman that he said the hearing would go on until people were out of questions. After some rather tense negotiations, with GOP senators suggesting the hearing end and Carper and Whitehouse pushing for more time to question, Barrasso agrees to another short round for those with questions.
Senator Whitehouse uses his final question period to ask about Pruitt’s “@me.com” email address, in addition to his “oag.ok.gov” address. (I smell a FOIA request…)
Moving on, Whitehouse looks at the list of Pruitt’s cases, basically none of which are brought by Pruitt on behalf of the environment. Pruitt tries to pass the buck and say an underling was responsible for environmental action. But Whitehouse, who as a former AG knows a thing or two about the position, remains adamant about Pruitt’s startling absence of any actions brought to protect the environment.
Senator Booker remains fixated on the Illinois River case involving poultry producers. Booker maps out how Pruitt stopped the standard, disbanded the OK AG’s environmental unit, and supported a “Right to Farm” law that weakens local laws to regulate farming. Which is all part of the pattern of Pruitt defending polluters from regulations, leaving Booker “worrying about which side you’re on.”
Pruitt doesn’t exactly answer.
And as Carper points out next, Pruitt also hasn’t yet answered the questionnaire that Carper sent him. Pruitt’s response is that the chairman told him not to answer. Carper moves on to ask if Pruitt will commit to regulating mercury under section 112. Pruitt agrees it’s something the EPA should regulate.
For his last question, Carper pulls out a big chart of cross-state pollution. Given Pruitt’s states-first approach, how will they deal with that and what’s the role of the EPA? Pruitt affirms that the EPA should deal with interstate pollution.
Finally, thankfully, the hearing comes to an end. What have we learned? Mostly that Pruitt has taken a lot of steps to protect polluters from regulation, and basically none to protect people from pollution.
After six and a half hours of questions, did Pruitt move any Democratic votes in his favor? Probably not. Will that mean he won’t be the next EPA administrator? We’ll see.
One last detail- as Pruitt was leaving, it sounded like he was approached by a woman who spoke about the hearing being draining, but that in her time in the ER dealing with something like a child clinging to life during an asthma attack, she’s never out in less than six hours.