DOCSLIB.ORG

7 Questions to Ask About EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's Meeting with President Trump

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
7 Questions to Ask About EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's Meeting with President Trump 7 questions to ask about EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt’s Meeting with President Trump EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is scheduled to visit with President Trump today at 3:00. It should be a friendly meeting: Yesterday, Pruitt told Bloomberg News: "My desire each day is to bless the president and the decisions he’s making."1 Here are seven questions worth asking following today’s meeting: 1. Why are Pruitt and Trump fighting for 30 percent cuts — more than any other agency — that would take the EPA back to the 1970s? They would reverse decades of progress cleaning up pollution, including toxic substances that foul our drinking water, air and soil. The cuts would lay off thousands of scientists and experts that states depend on for assistance. 2. Why is the EPA backing off on corporate polluter enforcement? Pruitt says, “We are going to do enforcement, to go after bad actors and go after polluters.” But Trump and Pruitt have called to slash funding for EPA’s enforcement, including 37% cuts to Superfund enforcement. And civil penalties for environmental violations have already dropped 60 percent.2 Environmental crime is already the largest area of corporate criminal activity, according to the US Sentencing Commission. And in 2/3 of the country, there is either no EPA presence or only one criminal investigator for the entire state. 3. How can Trump and Pruitt cut disaster funding as hurricanes and wildfires grow worse? The Trump-Pruitt budget would cut 35% from chemical facility safety efforts. It would cut almost 40% from community right to know and homeland security efforts to assess and secure vulnerable infrastructure and facilities. 1 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-25/epa-s-pruitt-denies-he-s-an-ally-of-polluters-vows-to-get- tough 2 https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/news/penalties-drop-under-trump/ 4. Does Scott Pruitt agree with the President that “asbestos is 100% safe once applied”? President Trump said this: “I believe that movement against asbestos was led by the mob.” 3 The World Health Organization says that more than 100,000 people die of asbestos related cancers and diseases. 4 5. Why is the EPA hiring polluters who will protect their industries? The EPA is increasingly dominated by industry insiders and lobbyists, people who have spent decades fighting to block environmental safeguards, undermining scientific findings on environmental threats, and organizing contributions to pressure lawmakers. Michael Dourson, nominated to oversee chemical safety, was a petrochemical industry lobbyist and consultant "in the business of blessing pollution."5 6. How far can the EPA go in putting politics over science? The EPA has been busy deleting references to climate change on its website, and recently stopped career employees from talking about it at a conference.6 Pruitt has begun purging scientists from “independent” review boards, and using discredited methods to hide the benefits of environmental safeguards. 7. Why are former Republican EPA Administrators so frightened by Scott Pruitt? “It appears that what is happening now is taking a meat ax to the protections of public health and environment and then hiding it.”7 -William Ruckelshaus, EPA Administrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan “The agency created by a Republican president 47 years ago to protect the environment and public health may end up doing neither under Mr. Pruitt’s direction….the evidence is abundant of the dangerous political turn of an agency that is supposed to be guided by science.”8 --Christine Todd Whitman, EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush For more information, check out EDF’s “Pruitt’s Playbook” at edf.org/pruittsplaybook 3 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-and-the-art-of-asbestos_us_581b2e4ee4b0570d6d6f0c1d 4 http://www.who.int/ipcs/assessment/public_health/asbestos/en/ 5 https://theintercept.com/2017/07/21/trumps-epa-chemical-safety-nominee-was-in-the-business-of-blessing-pollution/ 6 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-epa-climatechange/epa-cancels-appearance-by-scientists-at-climate- change-conference-idUSKBN1CS03O 7 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa.html?_r=0 8 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/opinion/how-not-to-run-the-epa.html .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Neglected Question of Congressional Oversight of Epa: Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes (Who Shall Watch the Watchers Themselves)?
    THE NEGLECTED QUESTION OF CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF EPA: QUIS CUSTODIET IPSOS CUSTODES (WHO SHALL WATCH THE WATCHERS THEMSELVES)? RICHARD J. LAZARUS* I INTRODUCTION The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") and the federal environmental protection laws within its charge have received much attention in the literature during the past twenty years. Commentators have frequently considered the relationship of EPA to the courts, including the advantages and disadvantages of both more and less exacting judicial review of agency decisions.' Scholars have likewise periodically examined the peculiar way in which Congress has drafted the federal environmental protection laws to ensure their achievement of policy goals. 2 These laws have Copyright © 1991 by Law and Contemporary Problems * Associate Professor of Law, Washington University, St. Louis. In my plenary review of EPA's first twenty years, reproduced later in this volume, I describe more fully the collision of institutional forces (including those unleashed by Congress) that have surrounded EPA, why they developed, and how they have affected both EPA and the evolution of federal environmental law. See RichardJ. Lazarus, The Tragedy of Distrust in the Implementation of Federal EnvironmentalLaw, 54 L & Contemp Probs 311 (Autumn 1991). This article explores in greater depth the causes and effects of congressional oversight of EPA, a specific topic for discussion at the Symposium on EPA sponsored by the Duke University and Washington University Schools of Law in November 1990. The article benefitted greatly from the comments I received at the symposium, especially those offered by Joel Aberbach, Don Elliott, Anne Shields, and Steve Shimberg. Kathleen Lindenberger and Cathy Varley provided valuable research assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • For Immediate Release News Release 2017-6 January 20, 2017
    DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DAVID Y. IGE GOVERNOR DOUGLAS S. CHIN ATTORNEY GENERAL For Immediate Release News Release 2017-6 January 20, 2017 ATTORNEY GENERAL DOUG CHIN VOICES OPPOSITION TO TWO PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATIONS HONOLULU – Attorney General Doug Chin has joined five other state Attorneys General opposing the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions for United States Attorney General and has joined eight other state Attorneys General opposing the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to become Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The letter opposing Senator Sessions’ nomination to lead the United States Department of Justice notes, “The Justice Department seal reads ‘Qui Pro Domina Justitia Sequitur’: ‘Who prosecutes on behalf of justice.’ As state attorneys general—the chief law officers of our respective states—we regularly work with the U.S. Department of Justice. Senator Sessions has stood for policies antithetical to this core mission of the Justice Department. For these reasons, we believe him to be unqualified for the role of United States Attorney General. We join the thousands of individuals and organizations that have voiced their opposition to Senator Sessions’ appointment and respectfully urge you to reject his nomination.” The letter cites Senator Sessions’ refusal to protect racial minorities and vulnerable populations and his rejection of bipartisan criminal justice reforms. The letter opposing Attorney General Pruitt’s nomination to head the EPA says in part, “As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt made it a priority to attack the rules— promulgated by EPA to implement Congressional mandates—that EPA is charged with enforcing.
    [Show full text]
  • A List of the Records That Petitioners Seek Is Attached to the Petition, Filed Concurrently Herewith
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE PETITION OF STANLEY KUTLER, ) AMERICAN HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION, ) AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LEGAL HISTORY, ) Miscellaneous Action No. ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS, ) and SOCIETY OF AMERICAN ARCHIVISTS. ) ) MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT OF RICHARD M. NIXON’S GRAND JURY TESTIMONY OF JUNE 23-24, 1975, AND ASSOCIATED MATERIALS OF THE WATERGATE SPECIAL PROSECUTION FORCE Professor Stanley Kutler, the American Historical Association, the American Society for Legal History, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society of American Archivists petition this Court for an order directing the release of President Richard M. Nixon’s thirty-five-year- old grand jury testimony and associated materials of the Watergate Special Prosecution Force.1 On June 23-24, 1975, President Nixon testified before two members of a federal grand jury who had traveled from Washington, DC, to San Clemente, California. The testimony was then presented in Washington, DC, to the full grand jury that had been convened to investigate political espionage, illegal campaign contributions, and other wrongdoing falling under the umbrella term Watergate. Watergate was the defining event of Richard Nixon’s presidency. In the early 1970s, as the Vietnam War raged and the civil rights movement in the United States continued its momentum, the Watergate scandal ignited a crisis of confidence in government leadership and a constitutional crisis that tested the limits of executive power and the mettle of the democratic process. “Watergate” was 1A list of the records that petitioners seek is attached to the Petition, filed concurrently herewith.
    [Show full text]
  • EPA Leader Scott Pruitt Resigns After Scandals Engulf His Agency Tom Dichristopher CNBC, 6 July 2018
    EPA leader Scott Pruitt resigns after scandals engulf his agency Tom DiChristopher CNBC, 6 July 2018 EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt resigned on Thursday after allegations of workplace retaliation, wasteful spending and self-dealing mounted over several months. The flow of negative headlines has been almost constant since it was revealed Pruitt rented a Capitol Hill condo linked to an energy lobbyist on favorable terms. Pruitt stoked anger among Democrats and environmentalists for leading Trump's charge to roll back Obama-era regulations and casting doubt on humanity's role in climate change. Scott Pruitt's polarizing tenure as head of the Environmental Protection Agency has come to an end. President Donald Trump tweeted on Thursday that he has accepted Pruitt's resignation. Trump said that the agency's deputy administrator and former coal industry lobbyist, Andrew Wheeler, will become the acting head of EPA. The departure follows months of scrutiny that gathered momentum following reports that Pruitt had rented a Capitol Hill condominium linked to an energy lobbyist on favorable terms. The revelation exacerbated concerns about the high cost of Pruitt's travel and security detail and triggered a flood of allegations that Pruitt fostered a culture of workplace retaliation, wasteful spending and self-dealing at EPA. The steady flow of negative news stories prompted multiple government investigators to open several inquiries into Pruitt. His EPA now faces about a dozen probes into its spending, ethics and policy decisions. "It is extremely difficult for me to cease serving you in this role first because I count it as a blessing to be serving you in any capacity, but also because of the transformative work that is occurring," Pruitt said in his resignation letter.
    [Show full text]
  • Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks On
    Administration of Donald J. Trump, 2017 Remarks on Signing an Executive Order on Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth March 28, 2017 The President. Thank you. Shelley. Thank you very much. I guess they like what we're about to sign, huh? Right? I knew they were going to like this one. Well, thank you very much. I very much appreciate it. And thank you to our great Vice President, Mike Pence. I'm thrilled that everybody could be here with us today. I want to give special thanks to Administrator Scott Pruitt, Secretary Ryan Zinke, and Secretary Rick Perry for your remarks. I told Rick, I said, run it the way you ran Texas—[laughter]—because this is going to be a great operation. And he did a great job, and we're honored to have all three. And I'm really honored to have our Vice President, because Mike Pence has been outstanding. Hasn't he been outstanding? Together, this group is going to do a truly great job for our country. We have a very, very impressive group here to celebrate the start of a new era in American energy and production and job creation. The action I'm taking today will eliminate Federal overreach, restore economic freedom, and allow our companies and our workers to thrive, compete, and succeed on a level playing field for the first time in a long time, fellas. It's been a long time. I'm not just talking about 8 years; we're talking about a lot longer than 8 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Capitol Insurrection at Center of Conservative Movement
    Capitol Insurrection At Center Of Conservative Movement: At Least 43 Governors, Senators And Members Of Congress Have Ties To Groups That Planned January 6th Rally And Riots. SUMMARY: On January 6, 2021, a rally in support of overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election “turned deadly” when thousands of people stormed the U.S. Capitol at Donald Trump’s urging. Even Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who rarely broke with Trump, has explicitly said, “the mob was fed lies. They were provoked by the President and other powerful people.” These “other powerful people” include a vast array of conservative officials and Trump allies who perpetuated false claims of fraud in the 2020 election after enjoying critical support from the groups that fueled the Capitol riot. In fact, at least 43 current Governors or elected federal office holders have direct ties to the groups that helped plan the January 6th rally, along with at least 15 members of Donald Trump’s former administration. The links that these Trump-allied officials have to these groups are: Turning Point Action, an arm of right-wing Turning Point USA, claimed to send “80+ buses full of patriots” to the rally that led to the Capitol riot, claiming the event would be one of the most “consequential” in U.S. history. • The group spent over $1.5 million supporting Trump and his Georgia senate allies who claimed the election was fraudulent and supported efforts to overturn it. • The organization hosted Trump at an event where he claimed Democrats were trying to “rig the election,” which he said would be “the most corrupt election in the history of our country.” • At a Turning Point USA event, Rep.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxic Temptation
    TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, DC 20006 (202) 223-0299 TOXIC TEMPTATION The Revolving Door, Bureaucratic Inertia and the Disappointment of the EPA Superfund Program Eric J. Greenberg THE CENTER FOR PUBLIC INTEGRITY 1910 K Street N.W., Suite 802 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 223-0299 "Let the public service be a proud and lively career. And let every man and woman who works in any area of our national government, in any branch, at any level, be able to say with pride and with honor in future years: 'I served the United States government in that hour of our nation's need.'" - John F. Kennedy "To the extent that the public believes that people who move in and out of government are doing so in order to advance their own economic interest as opposed to representing the public interest when they are in government, that's not a good thing for society." -- William D. Ruckelshaus, EPA's first and fifth Administrator, 1991 "I've had it with patriotism: I'm into greed now." - Anne Gorsuch Burford, EPA Administrator, 1981-1983, to Regardie's Magazine, August 1984 The Center for Public Integrity is an independent nonprofit organization that examines public service and ethics-related issues. The Center's Reports combine the substantive study of government with in-depth journalism. The Center is funded by foundations, corporations, labor unions, individuals and revenue from news organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruckelshaus Weighs in on EPA-Bashing
    Ruckelshaus weighs in on EPA-bashing Original Reporting | By James Lardner | Environment, Regulation March 9, 2011 — In 1983, Ronald Reagan needed a symbol of integrity to run the Environmental Pro- tection Administration and put the lid on a scandal involving its Superfund cleanup program. He turned to William Ruckelshaus, who had won the environ- mental movement’s respect as the agency’s first leader from 1970 to 1972, and then, in the “Satur- day night massacre” of October 1973, had resigned as Deputy Attorney General rather than carry out President Richard Nixon’s order to fire Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor who had taken the Wa- tergate cover-up more seriously than he was sup- posed to. Last week, Remapping Debate sought out the 78-year-old Ruckelshaus — who has also worked as an executive or director at various corporations, including Weyerhauser and Browning Ferris Industries — for some historical perspective on environmental policy and the way the EPA and other rule-making agencies are treated by elected officials nowadays. A lifelong Republican, Ruckelshaus endorsed Barack Obama for President in 2008, citing Obama’s campaign commitment to action on climate change as one big reason. Once upon a time the GOP supported environmental protections… Ruckelshaus’s memories of Washington stretch back four decades to a time when, as he recalled, “the Clean Air Act passed the House by 374 to 1; it passed the Senate by 73 to nothing. These were not partisan issues,” he said. “They have become much more partisan since.” He was quick to add that some of Congress’s habits, such as not giving an agency remotely enough funding to accomplish its statutory goals, are longstanding.
    [Show full text]
  • March 29, 2011 Hon. Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S
    ALAN WILSON ATTORNEY GENERAL March 29, 2011 Hon. Lisa P. Jackson Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA Headquarters – Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Mail Code: 1101A Washington, D.C. 20460 Dear Ms. Jackson: As state Attorneys General, we are writing to ask the EPA to defer its program of greenhouse gas (GHG) regulations so that Congress can be given an opportunity to evaluate both the need and timing of such regulations. Such deferral is especially important to us given the disruption that the rapid implementation of the EPA program is causing to the state administrative agencies that we advise and the businesses those agencies have been tasked with regulating. As you know, litigation is now underway challenging various aspects of the GHG regulations, as well as the Endangerment Finding on which those regulations are based; however, our purpose in writing you is not to debate those particular issues. Indeed, those are issues on which all of us are not necessarily agreed. Instead, our purpose today is to ask that you exercise the discretion recognized by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), with respect to the timing of your regulations by deferring the GHG regulatory program. Such a deferral would have at least three major advantages: 1. A deferral would allow the current Congress a full opportunity to review the EPA’s Endangerment Finding and to determine the best course for our nation to take. The Clean Air Act, under which the EPA has adopted its regulations, is not an effective or efficient vehicle to deal with an issue like the worldwide emissions of GHG’s, and the issue calls for full debate by our elected representatives.
    [Show full text]
  • JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the Last
    STATEMENT OF JOHN W. DEAN U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARINGS: “LESSONS FROM THE MUELLER REPORT: PRESIDENTIAL OBSTRUCTION AND OTHER CRIMES.” JUNE 10, 2019 Chairman Nadler, Ranking Member Collins, the last time I appeared before your committee was July 11, 1974, during the impeachment inquiry of President Richard Nixon. Clearly, I am not here as a fact witness. Rather I accepted the invitation to appear today because I hope I can give a bit of historical context to the Mueller Report. In many ways the Mueller Report is to President Trump what the so-called Watergate “Road Map” (officially titled “Grand Jury Report and Recommendation Concerning Transmission of Evidence to the House of Representatives”) was to President Richard Nixon. Stated a bit differently, Special Counsel Mueller has provided this committee a road map. The Mueller Report, like the Watergate Road Map, conveys findings, with supporting evidence, of potential criminal activity based on the work of federal prosecutors, FBI investigators, and witness testimony before a federal grand jury. The Mueller Report explains – in Vol. II, p. 1 – that one of the reasons the Special Counsel did not make charging decisions relating to obstruction of justice was because he did not want to “potentially preempt [the] constitutional processes for addressing presidential misconduct.” The report then cites at footnote 2: “See U.S. CONST. ART. I § 2, cl. 5; § 3, cl. 6; cf. OLC Op. at 257-258 (discussing relationship between impeachment and criminal prosecution of a sitting President).” Today, you are focusing on Volume II of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Looking out Las Vegas”
    LCV (0:30 TV – ENGLISH): “LOOKING OUT LAS VEGAS” VISUAL AUDIO RESEARCH BACKUP Child pours water To protect our water Heller Helped Introduce Bill Prohibiting EPA AdministrAtor From from faucet. in Nevada, we need Finalizing And Implementing Any Guidance Aimed At Strengthening leaders looking out The Clean WAter Act. In March 2012, Heller was an original Capitol Building. for us in Washington. cosponsor of the Preserve The Waters Of The United States Act, Senator Heller. But Senator Heller introduced by Sen. John Barrasso. The bill “prohibits the Secretary of co-sponsored a bill the Army and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Image of S.2245, weakening the Clean Agency (EPA) from: (1) finalizing the proposed guidance described in showing Heller’s Water Act. the notice of availability and request for comments entitled ‘EPA and cosponsorship. Army Corps of Engineers Guidance Regarding Identification of Waters Protected by the Clean Water Act’; or (2) using such SENATOR HELLER guidance, or any substantially similar guidance, as the basis for any WEAKEN CLEAN decision regarding the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control WATER BILL Act (commonly known as the Clean Water Act) or any rulemaking. [The bill also] provides that the use of such guidance as the basis for Source: S.2245, any rule shall be grounds for vacation of such rule.” [S.2245, 3/8/12] 3/8/12 Heller: Bill ThreAtens PersonAl Property Rights And DiscourAges Economic Growth. In a March 2012 joint press release with bill sponsor Sen. John Barrasso, Heller said, “As Americans struggle in this anemic economy, the Administration continues to stifle job creation at every turn.
    [Show full text]
  • Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions?
    Fordham Law Review Volume 79 Issue 6 Article 2 November 2011 Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? Robert V. Percival Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert V. Percival, Who's In Charge? Does the President Have Directive Authority Over Agency Regulatory Decisions? , 79 Fordham L. Rev. 2487 (2011). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol79/iss6/2 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WHO’S IN CHARGE? DOES THE PRESIDENT HAVE DIRECTIVE AUTHORITY OVER AGENCY REGULATORY DECISIONS? Robert V. Percival* Most regulatory statutes specify that agency heads rather than the President shall make regulatory decisions .1 Yet for more than four decades every President has established some program to require pre-decisional review and clearance of agency regulatory decisions, usually conducted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).2 On January 18, 2011, President Barack Obama joined his seven predecessors in expressly endorsing regulatory review when he signed Executive Order 13,563.3 President Obama’s regulatory review program generally emulates those of his two most recent predecessors, relying on OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) to review only the most significant agency rulemaking actions.4 Although this form of presidential oversight of rulemaking is now well established, an important, unresolved question is whether the President has the authority to dictate the substance of regulatory decisions entrusted by statute to agency heads.
    [Show full text]