Pruitt contradicted documents on condo deal, unauthorized use of sirens on government vehicle, and admitted he didn’t pay a subordinate who went apartment hunting for him -- a likely violation of federal law
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall, the ranking member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, publicly held Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt to account about the many and well-documented ethical violations Pruitt has likely committed since assuming office. Udall questioned Pruitt during a subcommittee hearing to examine the EPA’s fiscal year 2019 budget request.
Video of Udall’s opening statement and questioning of Pruitt is available HERE .
“It needs to be said that your tenure at the EPA is a betrayal of the American people,” Udall told Pruitt. “You have used your office to enrich yourself at the expense of the American taxpayer and public health, and such abuses have led to several investigations. … I’m worried you are spending all your time enriching yourself and your friends while betraying your mission to protect human health and the environment.”
Udall has led the effort in Congress calling for Pruitt’s resignation in response to Pruitt’s repeated ethics violations, misuse of taxpayer dollars, and actions that fundamentally undermine the mission of the EPA – favoring big polluters at the expense of science, our environment, and the health of children and families in New Mexico and across the country. Highlights from Udall’s questioning of Administrator Pruitt include:
- New investigation into Pruitt’s EPA : During the hearing, Udall announced that he is requesting a new investigation into Pruitt, this one to determine if EPA violated the Appropriations law banning taxpayer spending on publicity and propaganda by engaging in political speech via social media in an April 13th tweet issued by the official EPA twitter account. Udall told Pruitt that the investigation into “EPA’s single tweet encapsulate a running theme – your disregard for ethics and your disregard for taxpayer dollars.”
Pruitt admitted that the “agency should not have done” the tweet, which “mocked Democratic senators for their votes opposing the confirmation of an EPA official,” as Udall said.
- Pruitt admitted to a likely violation of federal law : Udall questioned Pruitt about his arrangement with a subordinate at the EPA who helped searched for apartment rentals in Washington, D.C on behalf of Pruitt. As Udall said, “CFR regulations prohibit directing a subordinate to do personal work for you. And if they volunteer, that is a gift. Services must be paid for at fair market value.”
“Did you pay [the subordinate] at the time for doing that work?,” Udall asked.
“No, I did not,” Pruitt replied.
“Then that’s a gift. That’s in violation of federal law,” Udall said.
- P ruitt contradicted the evidence about his use of sirens for non-emergencies: Udall questioned Pruitt on his reported use of sirens – which are supposed to be used for emergencies – when Pruitt was running late for engagements at upscale restaurants and for holiday shopping. “There have been reports that you encouraged the use of lights and sirens on your motorcade even when there wasn’t an emergency. Is that true, yes or no?” Pruitt replied, “I don’t recall that happening.”
But following Pruitt’s claim to not “recall” personally ordering the use of sirens, Udall submitted for the record a just-released email from Pruitt’s former head of security, Pasquale Perrota, who wrote on February 27, 2017 that Pruitt “encourages the use” of lights and sirens.
- Pruitt wrong about lobbyist condo-owner’s business before the EPA : Udall pressed Pruitt on the conflicts of interest associated with the administrator’s housing situation – in which Pruitt rented a condo on a sweetheart deal from a lobbyist couple with business before the EPA. “Do you see a conflict of interest in accepting a pretty good housing deal from a lobbyist couple that has business before the EPA?” Udall asked.
Pruitt claimed that Steven Hart “is someone who was not registered as a lobbyist in 2017, he's a longtime associate and friend…The filing that you're referring to was for the first quarter of 2018 and it was for the firm and Mr. Hart was not listed on that disclosure.” But according to a press release from Hart’s firm, Williams & Jensen, Hart did lobby EPA: “An independent review of the firm’s lobbying activity in advance of the quarterly filing deadline concluded that Mr. Hart had lobbying contact with the Environmental Protection Agency in the first quarter of 2018.” According to the Senate Lobbying Database , Mr. Hart was also registered as a lobbyist in 2017 and represented EPA-regulated energy firms during the term of the condo lease.
- Evasions on Pruitt’s $43,000 Privacy Booth : Udall demanded answers from Pruitt on the $43,000 privacy booth that was set up for Pruitt’s personal use, a purchase that GAO says violated federal law. Pruitt claimed that the EPA has properly reported the violation as required by law. But that’s not true , as Udall noted. EPA has only retroactively notified the Committees that the $43,000 purchase occurred. What EPA has failed to report to the President and to Congress, as required by the Antideficiency Act, is that the law was broken and what the agency plans to do to fix it. Such report must be done “immediately.” Udall also noted that EPA has failed to fulfill related notification requirements for all subsequent expenditures to furnish or redecorate Pruitt’s office, which will extend for the duration of his tenure at EPA.
- Pruitt doesn’t even know how many investigations he’s under: Udall asked Pruitt if he knew how many investigations into his ethics and spending are ongoing as of today. Pruitt said he “didn’t know” the total number. “By my count there are 14, including the inquiry I requested today, and I'm confident the GAO will accept. And it's 16 if you include the two ongoing reviews by your bosses at the White House and the [Office of Management and Budget],” Udall said.
- Pruitt tried to dodge questions about whether his top adviser skipped work for three months: As Udall noted, the EPA inspector general (IG) is now investigating if Samantha Dravis, the former Director of the EPA’s Office of Policy, came to the office most or all of the months of November, December and January. Udall asked whether Pruitt was making sure that Dravis was at work for those three months. Pruitt declined to answer the direct question, instead stating that he “interacted with [Dravis] multiple times” during those months.
“She worked the whole time, that's your testimony?” Udall asked.
“No, that's not what I said, Senator,” Pruitt replied, implying that one of his top political staffers may not have been reporting to work despite being paid.
- Pruitt appears to have lied about his request for 24/7 security: Udall asked Pruitt, “did you personally on your first day, ask for 24/7 protection for yourself?” Pruitt replied that he “did not direct that.” However, according to the EPA I G, Pruitt "requested 24/7 protection once he was confirmed as Administrator.”
- Pruitt said he will share documents from internal EPA investigation about reports EPA staff were maligning another member of the President’s cabinet : Udall asked about multiple reports that a member of Pruitt’s press staff sought to plant negative media reports about Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to strategically deflect attention for Pruitt’s ethical problems. Multiple media outlets have reported that the aide, an Oklahoma native, shopped allegations to Washington reporters. Pruitt said he investigated the allegation denied any maligning occurred, but committed to sharing any relevant documentation.
- Pruitt appears to have lied about his agency’s politicization of the FOIA process : Udall questioned Pruitt about reports that Pruitt’s political appointees are reviewing and screening Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. As Udall noted, “there are only nine exceptions to FOIA. None of them are for political purposes.”
“[FOIA] requires full disclosure of information and documents controlled by the U.S. Government. Did EPA impose a political review process before releasing FOIA requests?” Udall asked Pruitt. “Not to my knowledge, no,” Pruitt replied.
“You haven't asked them to put a political review in it?” Udall asked.
“I'm not entirely sure what I can say more than what I've already said about that,” Pruitt replied. But according to internal emails obtained by the press, “Top aides to Scott Pruitt at the Environmental Protection Agency are screening public records requests related to the embattled administrator, slowing the flow of information released under the Freedom of Information Act — at times beyond what the law allows,” POLITICO reported .
- Pruitt ignored congressional requirements in creating new offic e: Udall questioned Pruitt why EPA has not notified the Appropriations Committee about the new “Office of Continuing Improvement.” Longstanding Committee requirements compel agencies to notify the Committee of any such reorganizations in advance. Pruitt denied the new office met the definition of a reorganization, despite the fact that EPA’s own May 14, 2018 press release refers to the new office specifically as a “reorganization”.
Video of Udall’s opening statement and questioning of Pruitt is available HERE .
