During Senate Confirmation EPA Nominees Are Asked if They Can Remain Uncontaminated by Scott Pruitt

“I generally fly coach.”

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt reacts while testifying before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies on budget on Capitol Hill last month.AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

At a Senate confirmation hearing Wednesday for two nominees to serve in the Environmental Protection Agency as the heads of the Office of International and Tribal Affairs and the Office of Land and Emergency Management, it did not take long for lawmakers to dispatch with the elephant in the room. 

“We are learning almost every day about a new scandal—some small, some not small—involving Administrator Pruitt,” said Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee. “I do need to caution you both that your path to nomination will be troubled.” 

Carper’s observation foreshadowed how the next hour-and-a-half of what should have been the relatively routine questioning for the two nominees largely centered on embattled EPA head Scott Pruitt, the target of at least 12 investigations into his conduct in office. 

Nominees William Charles McIntosh, who President Trump tapped to head the EPA’s Office of International and Tribal Affairs, spent 19 years as an environmental compliance officer at Ford Motor Company. Peter C. Wright is an environmental lawyer who previously worked with Dow Chemical Company before he was nominated to lead the Office of Land and Emergency Management. Both repeatedly skirted around questions asking how they would react to an unethical request from their boss.

This exchange between McIntosh and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) was typical of many that took place during the hearing. “Assume that you are in office,” Whitehouse said, “What do you think is appropriate regarding having your professional staff run personal errands for you, like lotion producing or used-hotel-mattress-seeking?” McIntosh replied, “I will follow and am committed to following all the guidance of our ethics officials and all the rules and regulations that govern us while carrying out our official duties.”

But Whitehouse continued, saying, “Will you ask your official employees to run personal errands for you?” McIntosh did not waver from his previous statement: “I will follow all the ethics rules and rules and regulations of the agency.” Whitehouse then appeared to be incredulous, “Huh? I would have thought that would have been an easier question to answer. ”

Nonetheless, the hearings also focused on the qualifications of the nominees. McIntosh previously worked as deputy director in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality during Republican Gov. John Engler’s administration and focused on his experience in Michigan during his opening remarks. 

“When I started my environmental protection career, Lake Erie would catch fire,” he said. “Portions of the regulated community were recalcitrant in their compliance and the states and tribes were just learning how to implement their environmental responsibilities.”

He expounded on a belief that states should be given primary responsibility to manage their affairs, an approach he called “cooperative federalism,” which did not require “federal redundancy in regulation.”

Democratic senators focused most of their attention on Wright, whose nomination was fiercely opposed by environmental groups. An open letter submitted to the Senate and signed by a coalition of 100 environmental groups, rips into Wright for his job at Dow Chemical Company in which he protected “the interests of a corporation with a striking record of hazardous chemical releases and toxic waste sites.” The groups declared him unfit to head an office whose responsibilities include modernizing chemical safety programs nationwide.

When asked by Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) if he supported Pruitt’s decision to delay a chemical safety regulation from being implemented, Wright avoided the question. “I’m not deeply familiar with the current rule,” he replied. “I believe chemical safety is paramount, but if confirmed I [will] become more up to speed with the particular details of that proposal.” 

Carper then asked a question on a topic where Pruitt, along with many members of the Trump administration, including the president, have expressed skepticism. “Do you agree that humans are the main cause of climate change?” 

“I agree that humans are a cause of climate change,” Wright said.

At least one area where the nominees distanced themselves from their potential boss was on the subject of travel. Pruitt has reportedly spent over $105,000 by traveling on first-class flights.

“I generally fly coach,” McIntosh said. 

The committee will likely approve both men, sending their nominations to the floor of the Senate. Meanwhile, Senators will not have to wait long to ask Pruitt questions themselves. After a series of appearances before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee and House Commerce Committee on the Environment, he is set to return to Capitol Hill for an August hearing before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee hearing, Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) announced in a press release Tuesday night. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate