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

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of 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.” 


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend