I'm Bill Moyers. Here with a horror story, a story of corruption, so daring, so devious,
and so dangerous it could kill you. It could poison your drinking water, contaminate your
neighborhood, and make your children very, very sick.
Let's begin with a television commercial that I chanced to see on CNN during Donald
Trump's inaugural weekend. Take a look.
The U.S. Senate will vote to confirm Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection
Agency. He'll use transparent, smart regulations to protect our air and water without
stifling development of America's abundant natural resources.
That's an ad sponsored by one of the biggest and most powerful trade associations in the
country, the National Association of Manufacturers. The NAM ran three ads like it during an inaugural
week. All of them aimed at bringing public pressure to bear on the U.S. Senate to confirm
Scott Pruitt as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. And just who, you might
ask, is Scott Pruitt.
It is an honor and a privilege to be before you today to be considered for the position
of EPA Administrator. Pruitt is Oklahoma's Attorney General. His salary of more than
$260,000 is paid by taxpayers. But Pruitt really works for the energy industry. He's
a political profiteer whose career in public office is built on taking money from corporations
and doing their bidding. It appears that a great deal of your fundraising comes from
these organizations who are in the energy sector and devoted to fighting climate change.
At Pruitt's recent confirmation hearings before Congress, Senator Sheldon, White House
of Rhode Island, tried to unravel the web of corporate influence around Scott Pruitt.
Devon Energy, Koch Industries, Exxon Mobil have all maxed out to that account.
I'm not aware of that maxed out or not, Senator, but I'm sure they've given to that committee.
I'll take a look at this letter. In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency was trying
to limit methane gas leaking from drilling operations like that of Devon Energy, one
of those oil and gas companies that donate to him. Pruitt wrote the EPA on behalf of
the company. Turns out the letter was drafted almost to the word by lawyers for Devon Energy.
That is the letter that's on my letterhead that was sent to the EPA, yes, with respect
to the EPA. Do you acknowledge that 97% of the words
in that letter came directly from Devon Energy? I've not looked at the percentages. You used
your office as a direct extension of an oil company rather than a direct extension of
the interests of the public health of the people of Oklahoma.
Something else. As Attorney General, Scott Pruitt has sued the Environmental Protection
Agency 14 times. The New York Times found that 13 of those lawsuits included co-parties
that had given money to Pruitt's campaign or to an affiliated PAC. Most of the suits
fail, but that did not deter Pruitt or his donors. According to the publication Energy
and Environment News, the more he sued, the more the energy dollars rolled in.
So why does Donald Trump want a lackey for the big energy companies to run the agency
charged with protecting the public from pollution? And why did the National Association of Manufacturers
run ads like this for a man so obviously not a defender of the public interest? Because
Trump and the industry can count Pruitt on their side, as his record shows, in preventing
the EPA from holding big business accountable for the environment and public safety. After
all, when he became Attorney General of Oklahoma, he shut down the state's Environmental Enforcement
Unit.
Honestly, people are going to think that it's not just the fox guiding the henhouse, it's
the fox destroying the henhouse. And because you haven't distanced yourself from the actual
litigation that you have initiated on most of the key issues that you are now going to
have responsibility for protecting in terms of the public health of the entire country.
And Senator, I can say to you unequivocally, I will recuse as directed by EPA at this council.
Scott Pruitt fits right into Trump's world. In his first week in office, Donald Trump
has aimed a sledgehammer at the EPA. Within hours of his swearing in, he ordered a freeze
on all new environmental rules pending review. Suspended all federal environmental grants
and contracts, thus stalling billions of dollars that were heading to key operations like air
pollution monitoring, water quality testing, and environmental research. Then, he ordered
all outward communication from the EPA to stop. No social media, no conferences, no meetings
between the agency and the public. So if you want to know if there's work being done to
clean up a superfund site, too bad. If you want to know the role of fracking in Oklahoma's
earthquakes, sorry, whether the emissions of an industry in your hometown comply with
federal safety laws, you'll have to guess. And there's more. He's opposed climate science.
As I indicated in my opening statement, the climate is changing and the human activity
contributes to that in some manner. In some manner? Yes, sir. 97 percent of the scientists
who wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human activity is the fundamental
reason we are seeing climate change. You disagree with that? I believe the ability to measure
with precision the degree of human activity's impact on the climate is subject to more debate
on whether the climate is changing or whether human activity contributes to it. We should
remember that Richard Nixon, a Republican president, signed the legislation creating
the Environmental Protection Agency back in 1970. It was part of the movement to restore
a country that had been despoiled by industrial abuse. The environmental agenda now before
the Congress includes laws to deal with water pollution, pesticide hazards, ocean dumping,
excessive noise, careless land development, and many other environmental problems. These
problems will not stand still for politics or for partisanship. Trump's wrecking crew
says environmental regulations impede the progress and profits of companies. But if you think
those companies and their so-called free market will without safety provisions make America
great again? Well, here's what turning back the clock could look like. These are the EPA's
own photographs taken for the record as the agency began its work. Rivers were polluted.
Lead gasoline threatened the developing brains of children. Trash choked harbors and illegal
dumping leached into groundwater. Agriculture runoff suffocated marine waterways. Unfettered
industries were running our country to ruin. There before your eyes is our past.
It's no wonder the founders of our government feared corruption in high office. They knew
it could lead to bribery, nepotism, and the abuse of power by government aligned with
the great moneyed interests such as the East India Tea Company. They knew it could enable
public officials to neglect their obligations to the public and serve instead the design
of wealth. At the end of the first week of Donald Trump's first 100 days, those founders
must be turning in their graves.
