Scott Pruitt Went to the Senate and Was Reminded of the Time He Said Trump Would Be Worse Than Obama

He has cleaned up his toxic opinions of the president.

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP

On Tuesday, Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt testified for more than two hours before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee about his first year on the job. While Senate Republicans such as Chairman John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) gave him credit for helping create jobs by loosening regulations, Senate Democrats were far more concerned with the actions he’s taken that have damaged the functioning of the agency and harmed America’s land, water, and air.

The EPA has touted the massive repeal of regulations as a major achievement of the last year, but Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), the ranking member of the committee, saw it differently. “Those are not achievements,” he said. “Those are the complete opposite.”

The night before the hearing, Democrats on the Environment and Public Works committee released a memo entitled “Basically Backward: How the Trump Administration is Erasing Decades of Air, Water and Land Protections and Jeopardizing Public Health.” In it, they outlined some of the steps Pruitt’s EPA has taken to rollback environmental protections. “From nominating extremists to some of the highest posts in our government, to willfully ignoring sound science and stripping the protections that keep millions of Americans safe, this administration has spent its first year reversing the progress our country,” Sen. Carper said in a press release about the memo. 

During his testimony, Pruitt said that the EPA is going to focus on cleaning up Superfund sites at a faster space. Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) asked Pruitt if he believed that the 327 Superfund sites that are threatened by climate-fueled flooding deserved immediate attention. “Absolutely,” Pruitt replied, but he did not acknowledge the dangers from climate change. As Carper pointed out, the White House budget has proposed cutting the Superfund budget by 30 percent. Earlier this month, a list circulated by the EPA showed Superfund cleanup successes, seven of which had occurred during the Obama administration.

At his Senate confirmation hearing—which was the last time he had appeared before the committee—Pruitt famously said that he hadn’t looked into the scientific research on lead poisoning, but on Tuesday he announced the launch of a bipartisan war on lead. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) noticed the discrepancy. “Unfortunately, your rhetoric doesn’t match your actions,” she said. “Over the last several months the administration has taken several steps that will make it harder not easier to limit lead exposure.” She noted that the White House has proposed slashing programs that reduce lead exposure. 

Sen. Duckworth went on to cite the EPA’s decision to delay the update to the Lead and Copper Rule, which limits the amount of those substances allowed in drinking water. When the Senator asked Pruitt to answer yes or no to committing to updating the rule before 2020, Pruitt attempted to provide a long explanation. Duckworth insisted on a simple “yes” or “no,” until Pruitt turned to committee chair Barrasso and asked, “Mr. Chairman, may I answer the question?” Duckworth moved on after Barrasso told him he could give a more complete answer later. 

She also asked Pruitt about his unexpected trip to Morocco last December, to promote natural gas. “I don’t understand what the sale of natural gas has to do with the EPA’s mission,” Duckworth said. Without giving him time to respond, she then asked for documents containing details of his trips, which Pruitt agreed to provide. Duckworth also asked if he believed the country was a “shithole,” as Trump reportedly said about African countries earlier this month. Sen. Barrasso announced her time was up before Pruitt could answer. 

But perhaps the most dramatic moment of the hearing came when Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) grilled Pruitt on comments he had made in 2016, when as Oklahoma attorney general he appeared on the Pat Campbell Show. In a story first reported by Documented, a corporate interest watchdog group, Pruitt told Campbell in February 2016, “I believe that Donald Trump in the White House will be more abusive to the constitution than Barack Obama and that’s saying a lot.” Pruitt did not respond while Sen. Whitehouse held up posters of his quotes on the show. “Do you recall saying that?” Whitehouse asked him. Finally, Pruitt replied that he didn’t remember making those comments.

After the hearing ended, the EPA put out a formal statement calling Trump the “most consequential leader of our time.” 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

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