This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-senate.html

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Scott Pruitt, Trump E.P.A. Pick, Is Approved by Senate Committee Scott Pruitt, Trump’s E.P.A. Pick, Is Approved by Senate Committee
(35 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday pressed forward with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, suspending the Environment and Public Works Committee’s rules to approve the cabinet pick despite a Democratic boycott. WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans pressed forward on Thursday with the confirmation of President Trump’s nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, suspending the Environment and Public Works Committee’s rules to approve the cabinet pick despite a Democratic boycott.
The 11-0 vote sends the nomination to the full Senate, where Mr. Pruitt is most likely to be approved next week.The 11-0 vote sends the nomination to the full Senate, where Mr. Pruitt is most likely to be approved next week.
Democrats and environmental groups have waged a fierce campaign against the confirmation of Mr. Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, who has led or taken part in 14 lawsuits aimed at blocking E.P.A. regulations, including Obama administration policies aimed at climate change.Democrats and environmental groups have waged a fierce campaign against the confirmation of Mr. Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general, who has led or taken part in 14 lawsuits aimed at blocking E.P.A. regulations, including Obama administration policies aimed at climate change.
A day after Democrats on the Senate environment committee boycotted a planned vote on Mr. Pruitt’s nomination, the panel’s Republicans reconvened on Thursday and temporarily suspended the committee’s rules, which require the presence of at least two Democrats to hold votes, and approved Mr. Pruitt.A day after Democrats on the Senate environment committee boycotted a planned vote on Mr. Pruitt’s nomination, the panel’s Republicans reconvened on Thursday and temporarily suspended the committee’s rules, which require the presence of at least two Democrats to hold votes, and approved Mr. Pruitt.
The Democrats’ boycott and the Republican response followed the same pattern that played out earlier this week on the Senate Finance Committee, as Democrats sought to block action on the nominations of Representative Tom Price of Georgia to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and of the financier Steven T. Mnuchin to lead the Treasury Department. The Democrats’ boycott and the Republican response followed the same pattern that played out this week on the Senate Finance Committee, as Democrats sought to block action on the nominations of Representative Tom Price of Georgia to head the Department of Health and Human Services, and of the financier Steven T. Mnuchin to lead the Treasury Department.
In boycotting Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, Democrats complained that he had failed to adequately answer their questions and address their concerns about how he would run the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air, water and public health.In boycotting Mr. Pruitt’s confirmation, Democrats complained that he had failed to adequately answer their questions and address their concerns about how he would run the agency charged with protecting the nation’s air, water and public health.
“The Committee Democrats are deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr. Pruitt’s responses to our questions for the record,” wrote Senator Thomas Carper of Delaware, the environment panel’s ranking Democrat, in a letter to the committee’s chairman, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming. “The committee Democrats are deeply concerned about the lack of thoroughness of Mr. Pruitt’s responses to our questions for the record,” wrote Senator Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, the environment panel’s ranking Democrat, in a letter to the committee’s chairman, Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming.
“We believe these inquiries, and our questions for the record, elicit information from the nominee that he possesses and that he should be able to provide to the Committee,” Mr. Carper wrote. “Failure on his part to do so is not only an affront; it also denies Democratic committee members, and all members of the Senate, information necessary to judge his fitness to assume the important role of leading the E.P.A.” “We believe these inquiries, and our questions for the record, elicit information from the nominee that he possesses and that he should be able to provide to the committee,” Mr. Carper wrote. “Failure on his part to do so is not only an affront; it also denies Democratic committee members, and all members of the Senate, information necessary to judge his fitness to assume the important role of leading the E.P.A.”
Mr. Barrasso dismissed Democrats’ complaints, saying, “Let’s be clear, Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past E.P.A. administrator nominee in recent memory.”Mr. Barrasso dismissed Democrats’ complaints, saying, “Let’s be clear, Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past E.P.A. administrator nominee in recent memory.”
Republicans mocked the Democratic boycott.Republicans mocked the Democratic boycott.
“Democrats are just wasting time by pulling this stunt,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia. “Eighty percent of life is showing up. Democrats are just wasting their lives.”“Democrats are just wasting time by pulling this stunt,” said Senator Shelley Moore Capito, Republican of West Virginia. “Eighty percent of life is showing up. Democrats are just wasting their lives.”
Mr. Pruitt did provide written answers to over 1,070 questions sent to him by committee Democrats, in a 252-page file. But in some cases, particularly in answer to 19 questions requesting official documents or emails, Mr. Pruitt referred lawmakers to the Oklahoma attorney general’s office, and noted that they could secure the documents through the state’s open records law. Mr. Pruitt did provide written answers to over 1,070 questions sent to him by committee Democrats, in a 252-page file. But in some cases, particularly in answer to 19 questions requesting official documents or emails, Mr. Pruitt referred lawmakers to the Oklahoma attorney general’s office and noted that they could secure the documents through the state’s open-records law.
Mr. Carper said it could as long as two years to receive those documents.Mr. Carper said it could as long as two years to receive those documents.
Mr. Carper and committee Democrats also complained that many of Mr. Pruitt’s answers were evasive or insubstantial. In response to a question by Mr. Carper asking him to name a single E.P.A. regulation that he supports, Mr. Pruitt responded, “I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing E.P.A. regulations.”Mr. Carper and committee Democrats also complained that many of Mr. Pruitt’s answers were evasive or insubstantial. In response to a question by Mr. Carper asking him to name a single E.P.A. regulation that he supports, Mr. Pruitt responded, “I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing E.P.A. regulations.”
Democrats also said Mr. Pruitt had not adequately addressed concerns about the potential conflict of interests raised if, as head of the agency, he would address the same multistate lawsuits he brought against the E.P.A. as attorney general. Mr. Pruitt has declined to say whether he will recuse himself from making decisions in all cases in which he was an original party, telling Democrats simply that he would follow the recommendations of the E.P.A.’s ethics office. Democrats also said Mr. Pruitt had not adequately addressed concerns about the potential conflicts of interest raised if, as head of the agency, he would address the same multistate lawsuits he brought against the E.P.A. as attorney general. Mr. Pruitt has declined to say whether he will recuse himself from making decisions in all cases in which he was an original party, telling Democrats simply that he would follow the recommendations of the E.P.A.’s ethics office.
“Mr. Pruitt should be clear with the committee about whether he has already sought consent from the State of Oklahoma to recuse himself or when he will do so,” wrote Mr. Carper. “The committee members should have certainty that Mr. Pruitt would be able to conduct his duties as administrator in a fair and impartial manner without being bound to or entangled in positions he has previously taken as attorney general.” “Mr. Pruitt should be clear with the committee about whether he has already sought consent from the state of Oklahoma to recuse himself or when he will do so,” Mr. Carper wrote. “The committee members should have certainty that Mr. Pruitt would be able to conduct his duties as administrator in a fair and impartial manner without being bound to or entangled in positions he has previously taken as attorney general.”