>> washington journal continues. host: back at our desk, these director of strategic an engagement before the epa administrator scott pruitt is set to appear before two congressional committees to discuss the epa budget and his management of the agency. if you had a chance to be on one of those panels what would you ask? he becomes a daily reminder of an administration that has broken faith with the american public in so many ways, public confidence in our government and in the institutions that sustain our democracy. that is a high price to pay. i would ask why he thinks he should stay on the job one more day. fire put on what grounds?

guest: he has been a failure at his job completely and utterly. in recent weeks we have seen abuse of office. we have seen conflict of interest. misuse of taxpayer funds. of arrogance i have not seen in 26 years in washington. to change the safeguards we all depend on to protect us from chemicals and industrial ruin. he has been a failure at the job. host: on the administrative side of the agency, some concerns, his largest security detail he has, who is to say what the the epa administrator is facing. where we criticizing him? guest: there is a homeland security official in the epa itself.

the official took a look at threats against the administrator and found there was no credible threat out there. i'm going to leave it to them to be the arbiter of that. epa hasistrator of the ever demanded a 24-hour security detail, 30 security agents on the job, costing $3 million a year. what it's got to do before he was nominated and became epa administrator? guest: what he did as th attorney general in oklahoma, to stop the epa from doing its job. he was going to bat for fossil fuel companies. he filed 14 lawsuits against the epa, taking the epa to court to prevent it from doing its job. it was a hope in this background. there was nothing in the record to suggest he would change. what he is doing now is going to bat for these industrial

polluters from inside the muck. concerns, wascal there anything in his background ethical concerns at the state level? why would it change when he becomes epa administrator? guest: that is a great question. we learned last sunday these ethical concerns are part of a pattern that goes back for years while he was in oklahoma. what we have seen here in washington are things that make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. that is conflict of interest. going behind the president's back to give a raise to a political appointee, then punishing career professionals for trying to insist he play by the rules. has there ever been a larger toned deaf public

official than to waste $43,000 on a private soundproof phone booths we can make calls that not even his secretary would know about? what is he trying to hide from the public? it is outrageous. host: bob dean, calling for the firing of scott pruitt. you are with us until the house gavels in briefly around 9:00 this morning. we will be taking your calls and comments. what is your reading of where senators are on this push to fire? >> even some republicans are trying to put distance between

themselves and scott pruitt. he has become a poster boy for government abuse. that doesn't go down well for members of congress. they hear about it, and they should. this man is there to serve the public. he is going to bat for industrial polluters and that is just wrong. host: peter is up first. good morning. caller: good morning to you. this trump administration is astounding for its lack of ethics. i'm astounded. independent --an i cannot believe some of the things that i am seeing going on inside the d.c. beltway. do you knowask,

what don nickles is up to? ofwas in the hip pocket lobbyists in oklahoma. maybe you want to comment on that and the fact the trump administration, when i look at this, the two men with the longest seniority now, sonny perdue and jeff sessions. they should have a tollbooth inside this administration for the amount of turnover they have had. one last thing, the history of the epa. i was living when it was formed under richard nixon. theou could tell them about epa itself. i will hang up. keep up the great work. thank you c-span. guest: you got me on don nickles. i am not sure what he is doing. i can respond to the epa question. it was formed under richard nixon. he recognized that the country

needed to put in place an agency that would stand up and protect our water, our air, our people in public health. it is charged to do that on three legs. the epa is required by law to use the best available science, coming up with safeguards. finally the public interest, every time the epa puts forth a commonsense safeguards to protect us it is open to public comment. epa officials meet with hundreds of stakeholders in washington and across the country. the environment protection agency has been successful. the industry cried wolf -- the 360% since thewn

epa was created. been proved a lie. the epa has been saving lives in saving money, making people more productive at home and in the workplace. >> you have offered criticism of the epa administrator. the tweet from earlier this month defending his epa administrator, while security spending was more than his received death threats because of his bold actions. record clean air and water saving billions of dollars. the rent is about market rate. travel expenses ok. scott is doing a good job. guest: the apa's own homeland security official found there was no credible threat of any sort to scott pruitt.

that is not true. he is not doing what the american people want done john. we had a poll last month that found 90% of the public once the epa to do what it is doing, or do even more to protect our environment. nine of 10 americans and two tords actually want the epa do more. whatever donald trump is happy about, 90% of the american public is outraged about. host: here is what the epa is working on. policy thatl require studies to be fully transparent. why is that controversial? because it is not about transparency. it is about coming up with a new regulation to restrict the science the epa can rely on. science is a search for truth. common sense environmental

protection does save lives. 230,000 premature deaths avoided each year just by the clean air act alone. it saves money when people are able to show up at work and we avoid millions of lost we're becoming more productive and we are saving money. host: on this transparency rule, the era of secret science coming to an end. the ability to test and reproduce scientific findings is vital. americans deserve to assess the science underpinning decisions that may impact their lives. that does not sound like what you just discussed. >> we know how to replicate science. we know how to test science. it is peer-reviewed. they state the credibility of their careers on signing off on

this before it gets to them. so what he is trying to do, he understands the more we know about science, the more we know about the threats, the more we're going to be opposed to his agenda. he doesn't want science getting in the way. you have to ask yourself what is it that scott pruitt is afraid of? what is it he doesn't want us to know? host: bob dean of nrdc. good morning. caller: i used to make my modest contributions to the nrdc. no more. the gentleman is so obviously political. he reminds me of tim kaine or somebody.

i get other information from other sources including judicial watch. they offer some evidence about miss doings on the part of the epa. i'm in no position to debate mr. dean. i'm not calling for that purpose. but you sound like a hustler to me. host: when did your feelings about nrdc, when did that change? what issue did it change on? caller: as i began to get information about things that go on in the epa, that was contrary to my naive and idealized picture of the environmental movement. i'm not anti-environment at all. i am open to the idea that things are not entirely the way and man like mr. dean presents

them. host: was it this administration or the previous administration? caller: during the obama administration. guest: thank you for the call. thank you for your past support. i hope one day you will come back. i can only tell you what we do. we tell the truth about what is happening to the environment. i can source this for you with gold standards. we advocate for policy solutions. we are not bringing hands. we are talking about how to fix it. we use our laws and courts to hold polluters to account. that is what we do. thank you for the call. host: one of the things you have come on to talk about is the trump administration's decision to pull out of the paris climate

accords. is the world more polluted? caller: i don't know if we can make that assessment but it sent the wrong message. the paris treaty was a triumph of american leadership. we got the entire world on board. we are now the only nation in the world that has stepped away from a commitment to cut carbon pollution by reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. that is important. we are not a political organization. my rhetoric may sound as though we are, but it is not us who has changed. we go back to president george h.w. bush, and he and his family are in our prayers right now. he passed one of the best acts in this country. it has avoided millions of premature tabs.

it has made a huge difference in this country. trillions of dollars in actual savings that have been verified by the epa and the budget of the white house. we credit george h.w. bush. we think those improvements are going to be an enduring part of his legacy. that is leadership. caller: good morning. i'm an independent but i lean republican. i voted for obama. i feel like i can be independent. the epa and fish and wildlife services have approached a gopher for an endangered species and it severely limited the ability of property owners to develop normal property, which is a taking.

those rules have damage the repeat tatian of the epa and fish and wildlife to the average citizen. i will hang up and listen. guest: sure. the endangered species at was passed by congress. fish and wildlife services are responsible for implementing that. i'm not familiar with what you're talking about. if a species is in danger there are certain protections that are required. but in every instance land owners, ranchers, other stakeholders have their say. they are allowed to speak, talk about concerns, and those concerns must be taken into consideration. alternatives are sought. is it perfect? not always. an effort is made. the epa doesn't have anything to do with the enforcement of the endangered species act. it is a barometer species that indicates the health of the environment. it has a wide range in the great

plains states. host: why did that become the focus of some of the concerns the caller was bringing up? guest: sometimes politicians look for a species to hold out as an example and try to say we are putting this above human life. that is not true. we are losing species across the world at a faster rate than any other time in 60 million years. we cannot sustain human life on earth if we cannot protect species and stop this collapse of species loss. caller: i wanted to point out that even though the science behind global warming is pretty much proven out, the thing i

have against the paris accords, they allow some countries to do nothing and other countries that do anything are paid -- are paying money. the paris accords tells china you have to move your carbon down in 2030. china will just say we are going to raise as much as we can until 2030 and we have this time to reduce. even though global warming is true, the president was right to reject the paris accords and renegotiate and get other countries to do their fair share without us having to be the only ones who pay for it. guest: those are important points that you raise. i think there are a lot of misconceptions out there. china is investing more heavily in clean energy technology than any country in the world. it is investing in wind power, solar power at an astounding rate.

more than $120 billion every year. the reason is, china recognizes the opportunity three china understands globally we are going to invest $7 trillion over the next two decades in these clean energy technologies. china wants to be on top of it. we want our workers to be on top of it. we want to win and compete in that marketplace. the paris agreement was quite a help us to do that. with strong will take us in the wrong direction. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for your time for being fair. what i would like to say, this is an administration that said they were going to drain the

swamp and they have become the some creatures. the people that do not understand that we have a planet to protect, mr. pruitt, i don't understand why if you want to drain the swamp, why are they so corrupted? guest: it is a good question and points to something that should not divide us. i'm independent myself. every american has the right to expect a few things from the administrator. they will protect people and not polluters. they will serve with integrity. they would do what mr. pruitt raised his right hand and promise to do when he took that oath of office and fulfill his duties. he has failed in all three. it is time for him to go. host: you have come out and opposition to the secretary of

state nominee of mike pompeo. why is that? guest: i'm not actually familiar with our position on mr. pompeo. host: would any other cabinet level -- cabinet members need to go right now? guest: the interior secretary should go as well. host: why? guest: he is trying to hand over public lands for oil and gas exploitation anyway that is inconsistent with the mission of these lands. right now, the fossil fuel industry has access to 700 million acres of public land. a third of the continental united states. they have leases on enough land to cover the state of ohio, and enough water in the gulf of mexico to cover the state of west virginia. in addition they are sitting on 8000 leases that it is not even

using. he is trying to open up the atlantic ocean, the arctic ocean more and more. this is an industry that has more than enough access to our public lands and waters. we need to be reducing that over time so we can move on to cleaner ways to power our future. host: a few minutes left. as we said, the house is going to gavel in briefly at 9:00 and then gavel out. that ceremony expected to start at 10:19. we are expecting remarks at 10:30 this morning. time for a few more calls. thank you for waiting.

caller: i'm 100% for saving the environment. like the previous caller california, i'm against the paris treaty. one of the reasons was china. they are moving in that direction. they are not there now. what a kind -- what about a country like india? they made a minimal contribution. they get the economic benefits. we are unilaterally suffering with d industrializing. you would be better off trying to convince countries like india and then i would gladly support the cleanest country in the world. but they have to start making some efforts. guest: i appreciate those points.

india is -- does have one of the most aggressive programs in the world to convert to solar power. they are skipping over the fossil fuel era altogether and going directly to solar. in many cases for the first time. they are also putting a big push on electric cars. india is doing quite a lot. india and china, these countries are doing something that we have not seen before. taking hundreds of millions of people and moving them from abject poverty to the global middle class in the span of a single generation. that has to be taken into consideration. what you pointed out is important. clean energy jobs, investing in efficiency so we do more with less waste, building the best cars anywhere in the world, getting more homegrown clean energy is supporting 3 million american jobs one of the fastest growing sectors in the merck & company -- in america.

to get better gas mileage, more efficiency from our cars and help save our people money at the pump. these are exciting new technologies. in june, transmission technologies. they can make our cars the best in the world and help our workers compete in the global auto market. guest: we are not going to be involved at all in the elections. we have a separate affiliate, our political action fund that will be involved. it is doing its best to find

those candidates that are going to stand up for public health, and see if we can help them out. that is strictly our political arm, the nrdc action fund which is separate. host: can you speak to how much that group has spent in previous elections? and how much it is going to spend in this election? we know the koch brothers have already promised to spend $400 million in this election. in the past, ours has been less than 1% of that. host: let's get clark. for independents. caller: i was wondering if you have read a book called energy victory. guest: i have not but i'll make a know of it. caller: you should.

in this book is a solution to these problems you are speaking of. it is a flex fuel mandate. it is substituting alcohol-based fuels for fossil fuels that you are against. host: we will let you have the last word. bob dean. i appreciate the time. guest: thank you. host: live to the floor of the house of representatives. ♪

>> join the discussion. >> is like a boxer. it is all an act. when she joined the organization, there were only seven other employees. said, there are two donald trump's good one is the one you see on tv who makes these outrageous comments to get attention for his brand. even if it creates negative publicity, he still becomes the center of attention