JUDY WOODRUFF: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt
has arguably had as much influence and impact
as any other member of the president's Cabinet,
especially when it comes to rolling back regulations
and reversing policy enacted by the Obama
administration.
But, as William Brangham reports, the controversies
and ethical questions around Pruitt are accumulating.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: That's right, Judy.
The most recent controversy is about what
some are calling a sweetheart real estate
deal.
Last week, ABC News reported that Pruitt was
occasionally renting a room in Washington,
D.C., for $50 a night from the wife of a lobbyist
for the energy industry.
That lobbyist and his firm said they weren't
lobbying the EPA at the time, and the EPA
said the arrangement wasn't a conflict.
But The New York Times reported today that
a Canadian client of that lobbying firm, Enbridge,
Inc., got a sign-off from the EPA during this
period to expand a major oil pipeline.
Administrator Pruitt has also come under scrutiny
for expensive charter and first-class travels
during his first year.
Eric Lipton has been reporting on Scott Pruitt's
tenure at the EPA for The New York Times.
And he broke the most recent story about Enbridge's
pipeline.
And Kathleen Clark teaches government ethics
at Washington University in Saint Louis School
of Law.
Welcome to you both.
KATHLEEN CLARK, Washington University of Saint
Louis: Thank you.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Eric Lipton, first off,
before we get to the pipeline deal, can you
just explain a little bit more about the housing
arrangement that Scott Pruitt had?
What was going on there?
ERIC LIPTON, The New York Times: Sure.
So he comes to Washington, having lived in
Oklahoma, where he was serving as the attorney
general.
He's not lived in Washington full-time before.
And he was looking for a place to live, and
he knew the chairman of this lobbying firm
because he had an Oklahoma tie.
And somehow or other, he ends up getting an
arrangement where he's going to rent a room
in this condo for $50 a night and only have
to pay on the nights that he's there.
If you look around the neighborhood in Capitol
Hill, that's significantly less than it typically
would cost to get either an Airbnb room or
even if you multiply that times 30 what it
would be for an apartment.
So it seems like it was a pretty attractive
deal.
And the issue is that that same lobbying firm
has a whole host of clients with issues before
the EPA, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, Colonial
Pipeline, ExxonMobil, Enbridge, which is a
pipeline, another pipeline company, Concho,
an oil and gas company.
So he's renting a unit at the same time as
the husband is the chairman of the company
that has a bunch of business before the EPA.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So, Kathleen Clark, what
do you make of this, the head of the EPA renting
a room from a lobby firm tied to the industry
that he's ostensibly regulating?
The EPA says this was not a conflict.
They said he was, in essence, paying market
rent for this.
What are the implications here?
KATHLEEN CLARK: So federal employees are prohibited
from accepting a gift, including a discount,
from anyone with a matter before the agency
that they work for.
And in addition to that, all presidential
appointees are prohibited from accepting gifts
from registered lobbyists.
It appears that Pruitt, the EPA head, may
have violated both of those ethics provisions.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: So the idea being that if
you get a room or a rental agreement that
is well below market value, that's really
me as an industry, the lobbying, giving you,
Pruitt, a gift.
KATHLEEN CLARK: That's right.
The difference between the market rate and
the rate that Pruitt paid would be considered
a gift under the gift standards.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Understood.
Eric, you're the one, as I mentioned, that
broke this story about the pipeline, that
Enbridge, Inc., got.
They got a waiver from the EPA while Pruitt
was renting this room.
Can you tell us a little bit more about that
situation?
ERIC LIPTON: Yes.
What the EPA did was to tell the State Department,
which has the power to issue what's called
a presidential permit, because this was a
pipeline that was going to cross the international
line between Canada and the United States,
the EPA told the State Department that it
didn't have serious environmental objections
to that pipeline expansion.
And that occurred in March of 2017, at the
same time that Pruitt was living in the unit,
and Enbridge is represented by Williams & Jensen,
the lobbying firm that had the ties to the
apartment.
So we don't have any evidence that Pruitt
intervened or that Williams & Jensen asked
for any favor.
And, in fact, Williams & Jensen asserts that
it was not lobbying the EPA on this matter.
But the problem is that the standard is that
you shouldn't even take any action that creates
an appearance of a conflict of interest or
that undermines the integrity of the process,
even by creating a question mark as to whether
or not it perhaps was influenced by the fact
that you're living in a $50-a-night condo
in a nice neighborhood in Washington, D.C.,
provided by the spouse of the chairman of
the lobbying firm.
That appearance alone that can cause a problem
in terms of the standards of the conduct rules
for the federal government.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Is that right, Kathleen,
that appearances themselves, even if no law
was violated, which the EPA claims didn't
happen here, no laws were broken, appearances
can be problematic?
KATHLEEN CLARK: That's absolutely right.
The ethics standards are concerned not with
just the reality, but with the appearance
of a problem of a conflict.
And, in fact, the gift rules that were recently
revised require federal employees to consider
how the situation will appear to the reasonable
person with knowledge of the facts.
And if those facts would cause a reasonable
person to question the integrity of the agency's
ethics or that official's ethics, then they
shouldn't accept the gift or the discount.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Eric, as you reported today,
there were other firms that are represented
by this lobbying firm who also had business
before the EPA, and they didn't get any special
favors or any actions in their favor while
Pruitt was renting this room.
So is it possible this is just a one-off thing,
that the timing just looks bad, and that there
really was nothing afoot here?
ERIC LIPTON: Yes.
No, we still have no evidence that he intervened
or that the lobbying firm asked for him to
do any special favors.
You know, so we do not have that evidence.
And the problem, though, is that think of
like Gina McCarthy, who was the head of the
EPA.
Say she was living in the Sierra Club's condo,
an environmental group, or at the same time
as she was making decisions about coal-burning
power plants.
There would be investigations into that, even
if she didn't do any special favors for the
Sierra Club.
It just seems like the optics of that should
be obvious to anyone that is in federal government,
that you shouldn't have a financial tie to
the spouse of a regulated lobbyist.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Kathleen, you study governmental
ethics and you know the laws about this.
But I'm curious as to your take on Pruitt's
future in this administration.
He is obviously one of the most durable and
popular, as far as the president is concerned.
He's been very effective instituting the president's
agenda.
Is your sense that this particular issue,
as well as some of the travel and other concerns
that have been raised about Pruitt, do those
dent his future in the administration?
What is your sense of that?
KATHLEEN CLARK: My sense is that, while the
president is not exactly an advocate of strong
ethics standards, he is willing to abandon
an appointee who starts getting into trouble
and becomes unpopular.
And the stories in the last few days may be
a tipping point for Pruitt.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Eric, same question to you.
What is your sense?
Does this accumulated series of stories about
questions about Pruitt's behavior and his
ethics, are these damaging to his future or
is he still a rock-solid member of the administration?
ERIC LIPTON: Pruitt is the superstar for the
Trump administration.
I mean, the Clean Power Plan, the waters of
the U.S., the methane rule, the coal disposal
rule, I could go on and on, the number of
rules that he just this -- the 54.4 mile per
gallon standard, he says it's going to be
up for reconsideration as of 2025 for cars
they're supposed to meet.
The automakers were there posing with him
in a photo today.
The industry is embracing him and supportive
of all the changes he's making.
This is just what President Trump wants the
EPA to be doing.
So, on the one hand, he's creating a distraction
and ethics issues that are uncomfortable for
the White House.
On the other hand, he's perhaps the most aggressive
advocate of the deregulatory push that Trump
wants.
It is going to be a tough position for them
what to do.
If things get much worse, then it becomes
-- his status becomes more of a question mark,
but right now he continues to lead the charge
for the administration on this deregulatory
push.
WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, Eric Lipton,
Kathleen Clark, thank you both.
KATHLEEN CLARK: Thank you.
ERIC LIPTON: Thank you.
