Posted on 04/18/2018 1:35:18 PM PDT by jazusamo
A group of 131 representatives and 39 senators signed a resolution introduced Wednesday that calls for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Scott Pruitt to resign.
The resolution states that the co-signers have "no confidence in the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and [are] calling for the immediate resignation of the Administrator."
Highlighted within the resolution are concerns about Pruitt's use of taxpayer money, "dramatic" budget cuts and waivers given to employees to work at connected companies while still employed by the EPA.
"The Agency is hemorrhaging staff and experts needed to protect the health, safety, and livelihood of mil-lions of people of the United States, with more than 700 employees of the Agency having left or been forced outof the Agency during his tenure as Administrator," reads the resolution.
The lawmakers argue that Pruitt is failing to uphold his job as administrator due to regulation rollbacks and actions to lower environmental protections at the agency they say should remain "science based."
"Whereas Administrator Pruitt has failed to exercise the enforcement authorities of the Agency, which are necessary to the fulfillment of the mission of the Agency, and has hampered career officials and experts from efficiently doing their jobs without political interference," the resolution reads.
The resolution, signed entirely by Democrats, had the most senators to ever sign for a resolution calling for a Cabinet officials ouster, according to their press release.
Notably absent from the letter were the signatures of the three Republican members of Congress who previously called for Pruitt to resign or be fired-- Reps. Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Carlos Curbelo (Fla.) and Illeana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.).
A number of Democrats have called for Pruitt's resignation or firing since news broke at the end of March that he rented a $50 dollar a night condo from the wife of a prominent energy lobbyist. Pruitt has maintained that the arrangement was ethical and approved by the agency's ethics office after the fact.
The administrator has met criticism namely from the left since being confirmed. Pruitt was asked more than 1,000 questions during the nomination and passed through confirmation with the few votes ever for an EPA administrator.
Siding with the Dems and Soros
How revealing .
By the way its Dumb not Dump .
......Pruitt should follow the lead of that other appointee of Trumps. I believe the agency was Consumer Credit Protection or something like that. He showed up at a Congressional hearing and asked for Zero more money, or any money at all as I recall, then told them he did not have to answer ANY of their questions.
My preference would be that Trump and his 2 vote majority in the Senate close the EPA and return it’s functions to the states. At the same time, do the same with the FBI.....meaning return those functions to the states. I could go on and on but I’ll stop here.
Full speed ahead Scott Pruitt.
How many called for Gina McCarthy to resign when her agency spilled 3 million gallons of waste into the Colorado River? Or who did they fire or demand resignations from when an EPA employee was caught watching two to six hours of porn a day?
Excellent question and as far as I know it’s ZERO.
See post 7. Dems did the same if not worse regarding travel. And nary a peep from Dem reps or the media. But nice try, troll-boy - now you’ve slid to the point of siding with Dem agitprop.
Do you have a serious problem with Pruitt?
Nope. Just asking the question. If the shoe were on the other foot how would we treat that person.
Just checking to see if we have a double standard?
No, you are just trolling. If you were better informed, you would know that Pruitt’s travel expenses are not out of line with Gina McCarthy’s - and we never heard a peep from Dems about that. Instead, you roll in Dem agit-prop like a dog on a fresh turd.
Both sides have excesses that are problems. So I guess you’re in the camp of if they can spend our money like water, then we can too.
Whether that travel spending is justified is another story entirely. And not a point you raised initially, which means you are just clutching at straws now.
Indiscretions?
The EPA has a budget that must be spent. A Democratic-run EPA would spend this money on field agents levying fines against businesses for violations. Scott Pruitt spends this money attending football games and purchasing soundproof telephone booths, leaving less money for enforcement of economy-killing environmental regulations.
You may call these indiscretions but I call this money well-spent.
Scott Pruitt can't just cut the EPA's budget. That would be up to Congress and until that happens, he could blow the money on cocaine and prostitutes for all I care. He'd be doing America a favor.
I just want them to ge good stewards. Cocaine and prostitutes are not examples of being good stewards despite which party one belongs.
My whole point is we complain when the dems circle the wagons,yet conservatives do too over the same or similar issues. But thanks for the commentary.
So you think he should spend the EPA's budget on accomplishing the agency's mission of crushing businesses under punitive environmental regulations as the liberals running it before him did?
He or she doesn’t need to spend it on neither. They should only spend $$ on necessary laws, enforcement and research.
Your point is pointless. As usual.
Then why spend your energy on me? Apparently I’m not pointless.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.