Embattled EPA head Scott Pruitt was pressed repeatedly by lawmakers on Thursday about a number of ethics scandals plaguing his tenure: lavish travel, raises for top staffers over White House protests, and a questionable housing arrangement involving an energy lobbyist, to name a few.
But Pruitt’s most eyebrow-raising response came when he was asked about the decision to build a $43,000 soundproof booth in his own office.
President Trump’s top regulator claimed he “did not approve” of spending on the fixture, passing blame instead onto nameless bureaucrats.
“Career individuals at the agency took that process through, and signed off on it all the way through,” he told Rep. Tony Cardenas (D-Calif.), before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee.
“If I had known about it Congressman, I’d have refused it,” Pruitt added.
Cardenas did not find the answer convincing.
“If something happens in my office, especially to the degree of $43,000, I know about it before, during, and after,” the legislator replied.
Later in the hearing, when Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) brought up the matter, the EPA head again shirked responsibility.
“In this instance, the process failed,” Pruitt claimed.
Throughout the hearing, Pruitt had claimed that “the process” involved him attempting to establish a line of secure communication in the office of the EPA administrator.
Welch and other lawmakers noted that even this effort, as described, reeked of impropriety. Facilities designed for sharing classified information already exist at the agency.
“There happens to be two places, in this building, right close to your office, where you can do that,” Welch said.
“They’re not right close to my office,” Pruitt responded.
The two facilities are, in fact, “three floors away from the Administrator’s office,” according to a legal analysis produced by the Government Accountability Office.
The brief, which was published earlier this month, concluded that the EPA violated laws on appropriations by undertaking the $43,000 renovation project without any kind of Congressional notification beforehand.
EPA officials replied to the report, defending the construction as serving “a functional purpose….to conduct official agency business.” The GAO analysis made no note of any objections by Pruitt.
