EPA Pick Pruitt's "Radical Record"
 |
| "Make America Great Again"? |
Donald
Trump's pick to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Scott Pruitt, is facing new scrutiny over his
ties to fossil fuel companies and his role in ongoing litigation against the
very agency he's been chosen to lead.
The
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works announced Thursday that Pruitt's
confirmation hearing would take place next week, on
January 18. Also Thursday, Senate Democrats on that committee sent letters to
the independent Office of Government Ethics (OGE) and the EPA's ethics official
seeking more information about Pruitt's conflicts of interest.
Their letter to the OGE charges
that "[d]uring his tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has
blurred the distinction between official and political actions, often at the
behest of corporations he will regulate if confirmed to lead the EPA."
"Did
Mr. Pruitt provide OGE any information about his positions with RAGA, any role
he played soliciting money for RAGA, what resulted from those solicitations, or
any promises made or actions taken by him or RAGA in exchange for donations
made to it?" the senators ask.
The letter to EPA ethics
official Kevin Minoli, meanwhile, focuses on potential "legal
conflicts of interest arising from his representation of the state of Oklahoma
in litigation against the EPA."
As Common Dreams and others have
reported, Pruitt spent his time as Oklahoma attorney general launching multiple
legal attacks against the EPA and its efforts to protect the environment and
public health. Now, the Democrats on the Environment and Public Works committee
want to know how the EPA will ensure that Pruitt is recused from involvement in
those cases.
They
note:
The ethics agreement entered into by former EPA administrator Carol Browner included a clear and permanent recusal of her participation in any EPA matter in which the state of Florida was involved as a party... Our understanding of Mr. Pruitt's ethics agreement is that he has made no such unequivocal pledge. Why has EPA concluded that a more lenient arrangement for Mr. Pruitt's conflicts is appropriate?
Additionally,
they point to Pruitt's shadowy association
with the
Rule of Law Defense Fund (RLDF), a right-leaning public policy organization
that receives funding from Freedom Partners—a Koch Brothers super PAC—and has
passed "hundreds of thousands of dollars" back and forth with RAGA.
"Mr. Pruitt has agreed not to participate in any particular matter
involving the RLDF without prior authorization," the senators write.
"RLDF's activities and donors are largely secret. Without more extensive
disclosures about RLDF and Mr. Pruitt's role in in, how will you determine whether
a particular matter involves the RLDF?"
The
senators are not alone in raising concerns about Pruitt's nomination. On
Thursday, the League of Conservation Voters "departed from [its] standard
procedure" in sending a letter to
senators warning that their vote on Pruitt's confirmation would be scored on
the group's annual environmental scorecard.
"Given
Scott Pruitt's radical record and the far-reaching damage he could do at the
helm of the EPA, this is not the time for standard protocol," wrote LCV
president Gene Karpinski.
"The
mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and
the environment—our air, water, and land," he continued.
"Unfortunately, Scott Pruitt's record is completely antithetical to this
vitally important mission. Not only does he deny the overwhelming scientific
consensus that climate change is real and caused by human activity, as Oklahoma
attorney general he has sued the EPA on numerous occasions to block efforts to
cut carbon pollution and weaken safeguards for our air and water."