These Senators Want to Keep the EPA From Stacking Its Committees With Industry Reps

“Polluter-friendly advocates” get a seat at the table

Johannes Schmitt-Tegge/DPA via ZUMA Press

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

Ten senators are calling on Congress’ federal watchdog agency to look into whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s advisory committees are remaining independent and neutral under Administrator Scott Pruitt as concerns mount they’ll be filled with industry-friendly representatives. These 23 committees advise top leaders in the agency on issues central to its work, such as environmental science, public health, and safety.

The senators’ call for the Government Accountability Office review comes amid reports of Pruitt gutting scientists from the Board of Scientific Counselors. The board gives advice and recommendations to ensure the integrity of the EPA’s scientific research and has been the target of political attacks from industry groups and Republicans. In May, Pruitt chose not to renew the terms of half the board members, and a spokesperson for the agency told the New York Times he was considering replacing them with representatives from the industries the EPA regulates. “The administrator believes we should have people on this board who understand the impact of regulations on the regulated community,” the spokesperson said.

Then last month, the EPA told many of the board’s subcommittee members that they would be replaced, too: Of the 49 remaining, the terms of only 11 will be renewed. The current chair of the board’s executive committee has said this move effectively wipes out the board, leaving it open for a “complete reappointment.” A top scientist on the board faced pressure from the EPA chief of staff to downplay the significance of the dismissals in testimony to Congress. Instead she went to the media

Senators calling for a closer look argue the shake-up on the Board of Scientific Counselors raises concerns, and the GAO should evaluate how committee appointments at the EPA are being made. 

“To be effective, these advisory committees must be—and, just as importantly, be perceived as being—independent and balanced,” the letter to the GAO reads. “Individual committee members who provide advice to the government must be free from significant conflicts of interest—that is, they must be ‘independent.'”

The senators are asking the GAO to review and address the following points: 

  • The extent to which the EPA has policies and procedures for nominating and selecting federal advisory committee members to help ensure the independence and balance of committees;
  • The extent to which the EPA has policies and procedures to help ensure federal advisory Committees’ independence from the agency;
  • How the EPA’s policies and procedures for federal advisory committees compare with those of other agencies;
  • The extent to which the EPA has followed its policies and procedures for recent federal advisory committees;
  • How the current composition of the EPA’s federal advisory committees compare with the composition of past committees;
  • A comparison of how nominations and reappointments to the EPA’s federal advisory committees have been handled following a change in presidential transitions.  

“Federal law requires the committees to remain balanced in the viewpoints they represent and functions they perform,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said in a press release announcing the call for a closer look at the advisory committees. “Recent actions by Administrator Pruitt have raised concerns that he intends to stack these committees with polluter-friendly advocates or render them ineffective by establishing new, industry-friendly panels of his own making to guide EPA policy.” 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists 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 hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists 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 hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

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