Thread: Report: Trump Discussed Replacing Jeff Sessions With Scott Pruitt — This Week

Originally Posted by Beezer

I agree with MW...if they want to pay out of pocket to upgrade their flight then they should pay for that above the cost of Coach.

Taxpayers should not foot the bill for their wives or family members to travel on business. Give them a Per Diem like any other company, any more expenses than that...it's on them. It's not a family vacation on the backs of US taxpayers. Obama's took advantage of this and costs us millions of dollars.

Taxpayers didn't pay for Scott Pruitt's vacation. We just paid for his security detail which is perfectly legal. Are there too many security officers? Probably not, but they could look into that and cut it back if it's not necessary, but I figure it probably is. He's high-profile and environmental activists and Anything Trump Haters are dangerous.

Originally Posted by Judy

Flying first class isn't "royalty", it's as common as goose poop. It's safer because you're usually not surrounded by crazy people. It's faster to board and de-board for busy schedules. It's more private because there's less seats and they're larger, spaced further apart so you have more privacy to work on computers, read papers, and attend to important government business while you're in flight. It's the same reason high level business executives fly first class.

The hate factor against this President and his Cabinet raise a whole new level of safety and security concerns for this Administration.

Oh please .....

Originally Posted by Judy

Taxpayers didn't pay for Scott Pruitt's vacation. We just paid for his security detail which is perfectly legal. Are there too many security officers? Probably not, but they could look into that and cut it back if it's not necessary, but I figure it probably is. He's high-profile and environmental activists and Anything Trump Haters are dangerous.

I don't recall anyone saying anything about Scott Pruitt's wife. However, we did pay for Trump's Veterans Affairs Secretary to take his wife on a vacation!

His job that we are paying him for is to protect our environment therefore our health too. He has no intentions of doing that. Why bother paying $50 a night for a condo from lobbyist ties - surprised it wasn't FREE. He has had more meetings with toxic industries than meetings with environmental groups or scientist with knowledge of such. He doesn't want any scientist input unless they are working for the industries.
He ok's a highly toxic pesticide that causes brain damage to our children so the maker can profit - that is the kind of jerk he is. The whole thing STINKS TO HIGH HEAVEN AND HOPE HE IS FIRED!. What kind of yo-yo is he - he doesn't deserve that job. He is there to axe all protections so the rich can get rich at our health's expense. OUTRAGEOUS. We deserve better!
"No man may poison the people for private profits" - Theodore Roosevelt

In His Haste to Roll Back Rules, Scott Pruitt, E.P.A. Chief, Risks His Agenda

By CORAL DAVENPORT and LISA FRIEDMANAPRIL 7, 2018



Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection administrator. Six of his efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations have been struck down by the courts. Credit Andrew Harnik/Associated Press WASHINGTON — As ethical questions threaten the Environmental Protection Administrator, Scott Pruitt, President Trump has defended him with a persuasive conservative argument: Mr. Pruitt is doing a great job at what he was hired to do, roll back regulations.
But legal experts and White House officials say that in Mr. Pruitt’s haste to undo government rules and in his eagerness to hold high-profile political events promoting his agenda, he has often been less than rigorous in following important procedures, leading to poorly crafted legal efforts that risk being struck down in court.

The result, they say, is that the rollbacks, intended to fulfill one of the president’s central campaign pledges, may ultimately be undercut or reversed.

“In their rush to get things done, they’re failing to dot their i’s and cross their t’s. And they’re starting to stumble over a lot of trip wires,” said Richard Lazarus, a professor of environmental law at Harvard. “They’re producing a lot of short, poorly crafted rulemakings that are not likely to hold up in court.”

Six of Mr. Pruitt’s efforts to delay or roll back Obama-era regulations — on issues including pesticides, lead paint and renewable-fuel requirements — have been struck down by the courts. Mr. Pruitt also backed down on a proposal to delay implementing smog regulations and another to withdraw a regulation on mercury pollution.

The courts, for instance, found that the E.P.A. had ignored clear legal statutes when they ruled that Mr. Pruitt had illegally delayed a regulation curbing methane emissions from new oil and gas wells and that the agency had broken the law by missing a deadline last year to enact ozone restrictions.

In other cases — including one in which a federal court ordered the E.P.A. to act on a Connecticut request to reduce pollution from a Pennsylvania power plant, and one where judges demanded quick action from the agency on new lead paint standards — the courts warned Mr. Pruitt that avoiding enacting regulations already on the books was an inappropriate effort to repeal a rule without justifying the action.
“The E.P.A. has a clear duty to act,” a panel of judges of the San Francisco-based Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote in a 2-1 decision finding that the agency must revise its lead paint standards in 90 days, as regulations required. The agency had tried to delay the revisions for six years.

In an interview on Friday, the White House spokeswoman, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said that Mr. Trump felt that Mr. Pruitt had done a satisfactory job at the EPA. Her comments suggested that Mr. Pruitt’s work checking off items on the president’s agenda — including rolling back a large number of environmental protections — may weigh heavily as a counterbalance to the ethics questions related to his travel expenses, management practices and his rental of a living space from the wife of a prominent lobbyist.
Describing Mr. Trump’s view of Mr. Pruitt, she said: “He likes the work product.”
Liz Bowman, an E.P.A. spokeswoman, disputed the criticisms of the agency’s work. “E.P.A. does its due diligence, consults with O.M.B. and other federal agencies to ensure that its work is legally defensible,” she said in an email, referring to the Office of Management and Budget, the office that coordinates and evaluates policy across the executive branch.

One of the chief examples cited by Mr. Pruitt’s critics came this week when the E.P.A. filed its legal justification for what is arguably the largest rollback of an environmental rule in the Trump administration: the proposed undoing of an Obama-era regulation aimed at cutting pollution of planet-warming greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipes.
Mr. Pruitt made his case for the rollback in a 38-page document filed on Tuesday that, experts say, was devoid of the kind of supporting legal, scientific and technical data that courts have shown they expect to see when considering challenges to regulatory changes.

“There’s an incredible lack of numbers,” said James McCargar, a former senior policy analyst at the E.P.A. who worked on vehicle emissions programs and remains in close touch with career staffers who work on those programs. “If this gets challenged in court, I just don’t see how they provide anything that gives a technical justification to undo the rule.”


Protesters the E.P.A. this month. Environmental groups have cheered the agency’s losses in the courts on regulation rollbacks concerning issues like pesticides and lead paint. Credit Andrew Harnik/Associated Press The rules Mr. Pruitt is targeting would require automakers to nearly double the average fuel economy of passenger vehicles to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025. Automakers have argued the rule is onerous, forcing them to invest heavily in building hybrid and electric vehicles.
As part of the process, Mr. Pruitt filed the 38-page document, which is meant to supply the government’s legal justification for rolling back the rule. About half the document consists of quotations from automakers laying out their objections to the rule. By comparison, the Obama administration’s 1,217-page document justifying its implementation of the regulation included technical, scientific and economic analyses justifying the rule.

Experts in environmental policy said the lack of analytical arguments in this week’s E.P.A. filing surprised them. “This document is unprecedented,” said Mr. McCargar, the former E.P.A. senior policy analyst. “The E.P.A. has just never done anything like this.”
John M. DeCicco, a professor of engineering and public policy at the University of Michigan Energy Institute, said the filing was a departure from the practices of previous Republican and Democratic administrations.

“A president or an administrator or somebody can’t just say, ‘I’m going to change the rule,’ without justifying it very, very carefully,” Mr. DeCicco said. “As a scientist who’s worked on these issues, I’m saying, where are the numbers? Where’s the data?”
Most of the document consists of arguments quoting directly from public comments made by automaker lobbyists, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers and the Global Automakers, that the pollution rules will be unduly burdensome on the auto industry, as well as public comments from Toyota, Fiat Chrysler, Mercedes-Benz and Mitsubishi.

While it does include arguments opposing the regulatory rollback from groups including the Union of Concerned Scientists and the state of California, it does not contain what environmental experts say is the critical element of a legally strong justification for changing an E.P.A. regulation: Technical analysis of both sides of the argument leading to a conclusion aimed at persuading a judge that the change is defensible.
Seth Michaels, a spokesman for the Union of Concerned Scientists, suggested that, in its reuse of arguments by the automakers’ lobby, the emissions-rollback document echoed Mr. Pruitt’s modus operandi when he was the Oklahoma Attorney General.

“It’s reminiscent of the 2011 letter Scott Pruitt sent as Oklahoma AG to the E.P.A., in which he took a letter drafted by layers for Devon Energy and stuck his name on it with minimal edits,” Mr. Michaels said.
A 2014 investigation by The Times found that lobbyists for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma oil and gas company, drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send to the E.P.A., the Interior Department, the Office of Management and Budget and President Obama, outlining the economic hardship of various environmental rules.
Between 2011 and 2017, Mr. Pruitt filed suit against the E.P.A. 14 times, and lost almost all of the cases.

Most were filed in conjunction with the Republican attorneys general of a dozen or more other states, making it difficult to know precisely which legal arguments his office contributed, legal experts said. Mr. Pruitt frequently took a lead role in the cases.
In the end, “a lot of those arguments were losers,” said Richard L. Revesz, an expert in environmental law at New York University.

In particular, Mr. Revesz noted a case brought by the group against President Obama’s signature climate change regulation, the Clean Power Plan, which Mr. Pruitt is now working to overturn from within the E.P.A. The lawsuit challenged a draft proposal of the regulation, which was an unprecedented move that a federal court quickly struck down, saying that they could not legally challenge a draft.

A site operated by Devon Energy near Stillwater, Okla. A 2014 investigation by The Times found that lobbyists for Devon had drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send to President Barack Obama. Credit Nick Oxford for The New York Times

While the attorneys general, including Mr. Pruitt, garnered media attention for the case, “The argument they had was ludicrous,” Mr. Revesz said.
The group did, however, score one major victory: After the Obama administration issued its final version of the Clean Power Plan, it successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to temporarily halt implementation of the rule.

Since taking the helm of E.P.A., Mr. Pruitt has barnstormed the country, meeting with farmers, coal miners and local leaders and promising an end to his predecessor’s regulatory approach. He also has favored closed-door policy speeches to conservative think tanks, like the Heritage Foundation, to roll out policy initiatives.
The Heritage Foundation was the venue Mr. Pruitt chose this year to say that he would make changes to how scientific studies are considered at the agency. Both critics and supporters of Mr. Pruitt said that, by making the proposal in a political fashion rather than changing the rules in a quieter but potentially more lasting way means that changes like these are more vulnerable to being undone by a future administration.

Environmental groups have welcomed Mr. Pruitt’s court losses. Joanne Spalding, chief climate counsel for the Sierra Club, said she was pleased by what she called “sloppy” and “careless” E.P.A. legal work. “It’s fine with us,” she said. “Do a bad job repealing these things, because then we get to go to court and win.”
Thomas J. Pyle, a supporter of Mr. Pruitt’s and the president of the Institute for Energy Research, a think tank that promotes fossil fuels, described that as spin. “The environmental left portrays Scott Pruitt as a devil incarnate in their fund-raising solicitations, yet brag about how ineffective he is in dismantling Obama’s climate rules,” he said. “Which is it?”

Still, some conservatives said they were worried that Mr. Pruitt was more interested in media attention than policy and feared more legal losses. “If the goal is to generate temporary relief and to make a splash, then what they’re doing is terrifically fine,” said Jonathan H. Adler, director of the Center for Business Law & Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
But if the Trump administration wants to permanently change the regulatory environment for business, he said, the E.P.A. cannot take such a “quick and dirty approach” to unraveling regulations. “I’m suspicious that two, three years down the road there’s going to be much to show for all the fireworks we’re getting now,” Mr. Adler said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/c...rollbacks.html

Originally Posted by MW

I don't recall anyone saying anything about Scott Pruitt's wife. However, we did pay for Trump's Veterans Affairs Secretary to take his wife on a vacation!

I wanted to clarify that you're mixing apples with oranges and taxpayers did NOT pay for Scott Pruitt's vacation. As to Shulkin's wife traveling with him to the shindig in London, he did pay back the taxpayers, but taxpayers should have never paid for it to begin with. She shouldn't have even been on the trip to begin with. Same with Price's wife who went with him to that shindig down in Florida. They also paid back but taxpayers should have never paid for it to begin with. Their staffers weren't doing their jobs or didn't know how to do them. But they weren't fired over that, they were fired because they weren't getting things done. Pruitt is getting things done and he didn't cheat to begin with. Media has a target on his back because of his work not his travel or security.

pruitt wants a $43,000 private soundproof phone booth so he can take directions from the toxic industries he is supposed to be protecting us from. Come on - so obvious - what kind of govt transparency is that, so nefarious. Americans stick your head in the sand and pretend we have an EPA. trump doesn't care either; he is an Almighty Dollar guy. Thank God he will not be able to do everything he wants. trump is a hardcore profiteer - he lacks a balance between what is good and what is bad due to his GREED & rich buddies.

There is no reason why we cannot be expanding clean renewable energy forms, with plenty of jobs, other than big gas/oil doesn't want that - and we pay for their expansion costs. Millions of pounds of cancer causing chemicals are needed for fracking and can only be acquired thru one company. All the politicians having STOCK in these industries want to eliminate regulations to safeguard our health. Appalling! And those chemicals come back up with the water that they don't know what to do with. California is disposing of it on produce crops, your lettuce. The industry is trying to dump it into the Delaware River watershed, water source for millions of NE people, 4 states.

There is also no reason we should be reinstating pesticides that were banned due to heavily documented research of brain damage to children. pruitt did that so the pesticide maker can make $$$$. Get rid of pruitt! Let us have a real EPA chief.

"No man may poison the people for private profits" - Theodore Roosevelt

Embattled EPA Chief's Calendar Shows Industry Had His Ear

By REUTERSAPRIL 6, 2018, 6:18 P.M. E.D.T.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt held 25-times more meetings with industry representatives than environmental advocates during his first seven months in office, according to a Reuters analysis of his schedule, reflecting the agency's pro-business approach under his tenure.

The newly released record of Pruitt's schedule, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Environmental Integrity Project watchdog group, come as the White House probes allegations against Pruitt. These include his rental of a room in a Washington, D.C. condo owned by the wife of an energy industry lobbyist.

The pressure mounted late on Friday as 64 Democratic members of the 435-member House of Representatives called for President Donald Trump to immediately dismiss him over a host of ethics issues and for acting to counter the mission of his agency.

Three fellow Republicans in the House have also called on Pruitt to resign, but the EPA chief has widespread support from conservatives.
Pruitt, a vocal doubter of mainstream climate change science, has also faced criticism for frequent first-class air travel, spending on costly items in his office - including a $43,000 soundproof telephone booth - and a trip to Morocco where he promoted U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas, something outside the remit of an environmental regulator.

PRESIDENTIAL PRAISE
President Donald Trump has praised Pruitt for aggressively pursuing his agenda to roll back regulations he sees as unnecessary to pave the way for more oil, gas, and coal production as well as removing environmental hurdles to a revival in domestic manufacturing.
Trump on Thursday said Pruitt was doing a "fantastic job," and was well-loved in "coal and energy country." While Trump appears to support Pruitt, the president can change his mind quickly.
Last autumn, Trump said he had confidence in Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, even after their relationship was strained over Iran and Russia policy. Trump fired Tillerson last month.

Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly had advocated last week for Trump to fire Pruitt, a White House official said. Trump met with Pruitt early on Friday, said the same official, who declined to say what the meeting concerned.

According to the calendar, Pruitt met with representatives of the industries EPA regulates at least 105 times from Feb. 22 to Aug. 10 of last year, making up about 77 percent of his total meetings during that period.

About half of those industry meetings were with representatives of the oil, gas, coal and mining industries, according to the records, including executives from companies such as oil major BP Plc, refiner Valero Energy Corp, coal producer Murray Energy and miner BHP Billiton.

'I PROSECUTE POLLUTERS'
Most of the rest of Pruitt's industry meetings were with representatives of agriculture, including farm groups like the National Cattlemen's Association, and biofuels producers like Growth Energy and POET, according to the records.

But Pruitt met only four times with environmental groups eager to see the EPA limit pollution from those industries, the records show - Trout Unlimited, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a nonprofit association of state environmental agency leaders called ECOS, and the Alliance to Restore Our Waterways.

Past EPA administrators have been criticized by conservatives for spending too much time with environmental lobbying groups and too little with industry.
Pruitt, a former attorney general of Oklahoma, said through a spokesman that he does not spend any time with polluters. "I prosecute polluters. What I'm spending time with are stakeholders who care about outcomes," he said.
"It's Washington, D.C.-think to look at folks across the country - from states to citizens to farmers and ranchers, industry in general - and say they are evil or wrong and we’re not going to partner with them," Pruitt said.
Liz Purchia Gannon, a spokeswoman for former EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, who served under Democratic President Barack Obama, said the ratio of Pruitt's industry to environmental group meetings was a contrast to the ratio of meetings McCarthy held. McCarthy met frequently with utility groups while the agency worked to form the Clean Power Plan, Obama's top proposal to curb greenhouse gas emissions, Gannon said.
"As head of EPA she always met with environmental and public health groups and industry and business leaders. She believed strongly in meeting regularly with all sides,” said Gannon, who did not provide data on the meetings.
Pruitt also held a number of meetings with conservative policy think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, and the Family Research Council, a religious group that argues that homosexual conduct is harmful to society, according to the records.
A portion of Pruitt's schedule covering his first few months in office had already been released by the EPA, but the latest batch covers the broadest period so far.

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2018...-industry.html

Artist wrote (excerpt):

Get rid of pruitt! Let us have a real EPA chief.

A "real EPA chief" (one who truly cared for our environment) probably wouldn't follow Trump blindly where our environment is concerned. Trump needs a 'yes man' in that position. While I may agree with Trump in many areas, the environment certainly isn't one of them! Trump is not environmentally friendly and neither is his gopher boy Pruitt.

trump should at least pick someone not so obviously industry related - it is insulting to Americans. Reckless industries need to be reigned in and held accountable otherwise the damage continues. Politicians should disclose all stocks they hold and be published in all medias.

There are many insulting proposals from politicians and am sure it is due to industry ties. They collect a paycheck and pension from citizens but they work for industry via campaign contributions/lobbyists. The system of acquiring campaign funding needs to be changed otherwise it will continue.

Just to give a few examples of how our politicians' time is being spent whilst we still have an open border, still no clarification on birth right citizenship, still catch & release, still "fear" cons entering - and all this costs billions in social services, court systems and endangerment of our lives. Some have introduced legislation on those issues but they go nowhere and they seem perfectly fine with that.

H.R. 469: Delaying Public Health Protections

Sponsor Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA 9) Read Text

Threat Limiting Judges’ Power Meddling with Settlements
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Jan. 12, 2017)
Passed Committee
House Approval Oct. 25, 2017 (234-187)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Inhibits the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies from settling lawsuits, even when the government has acted unlawfully. This drags out legal action, raising costs for plaintiffs and allowing the administration to avoid enforcing environmental regulations. It will lead to more pollution and industrial harm to communities.

H.R. 732: Preventing Polluter Restitution to Harmed Communities

Sponsor Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6) Read Text

Threat Meddling with Settlements
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Jan. 30, 2017)
Passed Committee
House Approval Oct. 24, 2017 (238-183)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Prohibits settlement payments to organizations that help damaged communities recover. For example, this bill could prevent the Justice Department from requiring an oil company to fund necessary health services or help small businesses in the wake of an oil spill, such as the Deepwater Horizon or Exxon Valdez disasters. Related to a directive by Attorney General Jeff Sessions to forbid third-party settlements. Text also included in H.R. 10, Blocking Aid to Remedy Polluter and Industry Wrongs, at §393.



H.Amdt.367 to H.R. 3354: Gutting Community Enforcement of Bedrock Environmental Laws

Sponsor Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO Read Text

Threat Meddling with Settlements Too Expensive to Sue
Sector Environment

Offered (Sept. 8, 2017)
—
House Approval Sept. 8, 2017 (voice vote)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Rider language tucked into this fiscal year 2018 Appropriations bill would prevent court settlements under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act from awarding attorney’s fees. Aims to deter people and organizations from bringing environmental lawsuits by making them cost prohibitive. The result is more polluted air and water and loss of precious plants and animals.



H.R. 3219

Sponsor Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX 12) Read Text

Threat Limiting Judges’ Power
Sector Environment

Introduced (Jul. 13, 2017)
House Committee on Appropriations (Jul. 13, 2017)
House Approval, Jul. 27, 2017 (235-192)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Rider language tucked into this fiscal year 2018 Appropriations bill would defund a specific 2006 court settlement to restore fish species under the Endangered Species Act in the San Joaquin River in California.



H.R. 10: Blocking Aid to Remedy Polluter and Industry Wrongs

Sponsor Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX 5) Read Text

Threat Meddling with Settlements
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Apr. 26, 2017)
Passed Committees
House Approval Jun. 8, 2017 (233-186)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary One section of this proposed financial legislation prohibits settlement payments to third parties. This would prevent settlement money from going to groups that work on fixing the problems caused by polluters and corporations that break the law. Includes language from H.R. 732, Preventing Polluter Restitution to Harmed Communities.



H.R. 985: Stopping Americans from Challenging Wealthy Corporations When They Break The Law

Sponsor Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA 6) Read Text

Threat Taking Away Right to Sue Too Expensive to Sue
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Feb. 9, 2017)
Passed Committee
House Approval Mar. 9, 2017 (220-201)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Obliterates class action lawsuits through severe restrictions to class requirements—thereby blocking Americans from joining together to challenge wealthy corporate wrongdoing in consumer, employment and civil rights cases. The proposed legislation also includes text that makes it more difficult for victims of asbestos diseases to receive compensation and compromises their privacy by putting their personal data in a public database, exposing them to online scammers. Bill amended by committee to also include text of HR 906, Attacking Asbestos Sufferers.



H.R. 725: Giving Wealthy Corporations Home Court Advantage

Sponsor Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO 4) Read Text

Threat Limiting Judges’ Power Taking Away Right to Sue
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Jan. 30, 2017)
Passed Committee
House Approval Mar. 9, 2017 (224-194)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Allows corporate defendants to find more favorable forums for litigation, which would include pushing cases from state to federal courts, raising the costs for groups seeking to hold powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing.



H.R. 26: Preventing Federal Agencies From Enforcing the Rule of Law

Sponsor Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA 9) Read Text

Threat No Judicial Review
Sector Civil Rights Consumer Environment Health

Introduced (Jan. 3, 2017)
—
House Approval Jan. 5, 2017 (237–187)
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Parts of this bill unconstitutionally prevent an agency major rule from taking effect unless Congress approves it. If Congress does approve such a rule, the bill prohibits judicial review of that decision, blocking the courts from keeping check on the legislative branch.


H.R. 3131: Restricting Fee Recovery for Wildlife Defenders

Sponsor Rep. Bill Huizenga (R-MI 2) Read Text

Threat Too Expensive to Sue
Sector Environment

Introduced (Jun. 29, 2017)
Passed House Natural Resources Committee (Oct. 4, 2017)
House vote
Senate vote
To President for signing



Summary Would restrict the awarding of attorney’s fees under the Endangered Species Act, making it cost prohibitive to bring cases that protect imperiled plants and animals. It also would shift payer of fees from the U.S. Treasury to federal agencies. This would make the underfunded agencies charged with protecting species, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, more cash-strapped in that work.

https://earthjustice.org/features/le...gin=true#start

Feb 27, 2018 @ 11:59 AM 36,674

The EPA Is Closing An Office That Helps Keep Arsenic Out Of Baby Food And Much More

Eric Mack , Contributor I cover science and innovation and products and policies they create.

Worker on a farm, along highway 1, wears a Tyvek chemical protective suit as he works with a herbicide to spray weeds after the broccoli harvest. Herbicides are used to eliminate weeds that are left in the field and need to be eliminated before the next planting.

The Environmental Protection Agency under the Trump administration and Scott Pruitt is not so concerned about the effects of chemical exposure on children.

At least that's the message sent by the news that the EPA will shutter the National Center for Environmental Research (NCER), according a report by The Hill. One of the main functions of NCER was to hand out grants and fellowships to scientists investigating the effects of chemical exposure on human health.

The EPA says that NCER staff will be retained and reassigned within the agency. It's not clear what will happen to the grant and fellowship programs that NCER has been administering for years. President Trump's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019 would have dramatically slashed funding for NCER by more than 90 percent, but the most recent budget deal did not touch the program.

"At the appropriate time, the science staff currently in NCER will be redeployed," an EPA spokeperson told The Hill. "This reorganization could result in a change of positions or functions."

The obvious and intrinsic value of NCER's programs is not particularly controversial. A detailed review of the Science to Achieve Results Research Program (a primary NCER grant program, referred to as STAR grants) by the National Academies of Sciences lauded its results:
"STAR has had numerous successes, such as in research on human health implications of air pollution, on environmental effects on children’s health and well-being, on interactions between climate change and air quality, and on the human health implications of nanoparticles. Those are just a few examples; many more could be cited."

The report, in fact, does provide a few more specific example:

"In 2016, a research project partially supported by a STAR grant recognized that infants could be exposed to arsenic through rice cereal (Karagas et al. 2016), and this recognition led the Food and Drug Administration to propose regulations to protect infant health (FDA 2016). Another example is the discovery by the University of Washington Children’s Center that farmworker children had increased exposure to the pesticide ingredient azinphos-methyl which is a neurotoxicant (Curl et al. 2002), which informed EPA’s decision to phase out the use of azinphos-methyl (EPA 2006)."

But the list goes on. NCER programs also support prevention and/or treatment of childhood asthma, preterm births, leukemia, immune system disorders, neurodevelopment problems, autism spectrum disorder and obesity.

The EPA says the NCER will be eliminated as part of a merger of three EPA offices "to create management efficiencies within the organization."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmac.../#7eac9abe4328

Scott Pruitt’s Idea to Update an E.P.A. Keepsake:
Less E.P.A., More Pruitt

By Lisa Friedman and Kenneth P. Vogel

April 11, 2018


Scott Pruitt, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator. An E.P.A. official said Mr. Pruitt dislikes the agency’s logo because he feels that it looks like a marijuana leaf.CreditAndrew Harnik/Associated PressWhen Scott Pruitt wanted to refashion the Environmental Protection Agency’s “challenge coin” — a type of souvenir medallion with military origins that has become a status symbol among civilians — he proposed an unusual design: Make it bigger, and delete the E.P.A. logo.

Mr. Pruitt instead wanted the coin to feature some combination of symbols more reflective of himself and the Trump administration. Among the possibilities: a buffalo, to evoke Mr. Pruitt’s native Oklahoma, and a Bible verse to reflect his faith.

Other ideas included using the Great Seal of the United States — a design similar to the presidential seal — and putting Mr. Pruitt’s name around the rim in large letters, according to Ronald Slotkin, a career E.P.A. employee who retired this year, and two people familiar with the proposals who asked to remain anonymous because they said they feared retribution.

Many agencies have challenge coins to hand out as gifts to employees or guests. The name comes from a military tradition of carrying a coin stamped with an insignia to prove one’s affiliation, if challenged.

Mr. Pruitt’s numismatic preferences, laid out last year during his first few months at the agency, raised concerns among senior agency officials, according to Mr. Slotkin and the others. Over the course of several months of discussions, they said, staff members expressed worries that his proposals would cost too much, and that dropping the agency’s seal — a stylized flower — would be a breach of protocol. They urged Mr. Pruitt to consider more modest designs and to drop his objection to the seal.

Mr. Slotkin said the proposals appeared to refashion the coin into a keepsake embodying Mr. Pruitt, as opposed to the E.P.A.

“These coins represent the agency,” said Mr. Slotkin, who served as the director of the E.P.A.’s multimedia office. “But Pruitt wanted his coin to be bigger than everyone else’s and he wanted it in a way that represented him.”

Mr. Slotkin said that during the design discussion, in which he participated, Mr. Pruitt wanted to remove “anything to do with E.P.A.” The changes, he said, would have turned it into a “Pruitt coin.”




The reverse side of the E.P.A. challenge coin conceived under Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, left, and the face of the coin issued when Gina McCarthy led the agency. CreditRon SlotkinA spokesman for the E.P.A., Jahan Wilcox, said the agency never ordered challenge coins.
Another person who was involved in the debate said that Mr. Pruitt had expressed disapproval of the agency’s seal, a round flower with four leaves. He felt it looked like a marijuana leaf.

Mr. Pruitt also requested that the agency order other items — including leather-bound notebooks, fountain pens and stationery — from which he wanted to omit the E.P.A. seal and upon which he wanted to feature his name prominently, according to Mr. Slotkin and the person who participated in the discussions about the seal. Ultimately, the items retained a small version of the seal, according to several people familiar with the orders.

The debate over souvenirs came as Mr. Pruitt was engaged in personal and public spending that has since become the subject of scrutiny, threatening his tenure at the E.P.A.
Mr. Pruitt has been under fire for renting a condominium for $50 a night from the wife of a lobbyist with business before his agency, as well as for his spending of taxpayer dollars on first-class travel, which he has asserted was necessary for security reasons.

In an interview with the Washington Examiner this month, Mr. Pruitt said he was under attack because he has been effective in enacting President Trump’s regulatory overhaul agenda and opponents would like to stop him. “And do I think that they will resort to anything to achieve that?” he said. “Yes.”
Mr. Trump defended Mr. Pruitt in a weekend Twitter message: “While Security spending was somewhat more than his predecessor, Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at E.P.A. Record clean Air & Water while saving U.S.A. Billions of Dollars. Rent was about market rate, travel expenses O.K. Scott is doing a great job!”

Some critics of Mr. Pruitt’s coin proposal said it missed the point of the gift item. Scott H. Amey, general council of the Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, said that the coins were intended to honor jobs well done and lift morale. “The coin should reference the E.P.A., and not become tribute to Pruitt or Oklahoma,” he said.
While the origins of the silver-dollar-sized coins are military — they have typically been given by commanders to recognize outstanding service — today they can be found everywhere. Eric Perez, who manages Lapel Pins Plus Network in Florida, a challenge-coin maker, said these days he creates coins “for everyone, from government agencies down to mom-and-pop stores and everything in between.”

Currently, he said, the company is designing a separate E.P.A. challenge coin to be given to emergency workers who responded to last year’s hurricanes and wildfires. The coin, Mr. Perez said, is similar to one the company designed for a division of the E.P.A. a few years ago that depicted emergency responders on one side and the agency symbol and division name on the other.

The main design of the current E.P.A. challenge coin was conceived under President Barack Obama’s first administrator, Lisa P. Jackson. One side bears the agency seal with her signature underneath and her name stamped along the rim. The other side has an image of outstretched hands holding up the earth.

The cost of the coins ranges roughly from $3 to $6 apiece (not including the molds) depending on size, thickness, design and number of coins produced, according to Mary Harms, the owner of Challenge Design, a company that makes challenge coins for the White House Military Office.
Mr. Slotkin, along with one of the people familiar with the initial discussions and who requested anonymity, said Mr. Pruitt wanted his coin to be about twice as large as the current one while featuring images of more personal relevance, such as the buffalo. Mr. Slotkin said that, when he asked Mr. Pruitt’s aides, why put a buffalo on the coin, they answered, “But he’s from Oklahoma.”

“At one point he wanted a bible verse, but staff talked him out of it,” Mr. Slotkin said. He said he did not recall which verse had been considered.
Asked about the details of the E.P.A.’s coin redesign, Mr. Wilcox, the E.P.A. spokesman, said in a statement: “Administrator Pruitt does not have a challenge coin.”

Other agencies have made changes to their own challenge coins. Ryan Zinke, the interior secretary, issued coins last year that display the United States seal on one side and his agency’s logo, a buffalo on a prairie with mountains and a rising sun, on the other. Mr. Zinke’s name is stamped around the rim. Earlier Interior Department challenge coins did not bear the secretary’s name.
Mr. Trump also has remade the presidential challenge coins, substituting his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” for the national motto, e pluribus unum.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/11/c...T.nav=top-news