as a scif. started asking and we couldn't get answers from them, after we brought this to their attention we noticed that the epa and scott pruitt did start talking about this thing differently than they used to. they wouldn't talk to us about it, but they started talking about it differently to other people. they told bloomberg news on friday that "administrator pruitt simply requested a secure phone line but never asked for a soundproof booth nor did he knowled have knowledge of its purchase." whatever it is he built for $43,000, all he wanted was a new phone. and when scott pruitt went to congress today it turns out he changed his mind entirely about this thing he built. >> administrator pruitt, when you were in front of this committee in december, we discussed the installation of a soundproof privacy booth in the administrator's office, or the scif, at a cost of over $40,000. at that time you told me that your view was the expenditure -- was that the expenditure was appropriate despite the f

scif.year "the washington post" reported that scott pruitt installed a private sound booth in his office as epa administrator. first reports were it cost $25,000, it actually cost taxpayers $43,000. cabinet officials are not allowed to spend tens of thousands to upgrade their offices. by they law get $5,000 a year to upgrade a lamp or curtains. so when "the washington post" broke the news about scott pruitt installing a $43,000 epa cone of silence in his office, that was a problem. the way they pushed back was by saying, maybe we spent money but it was not a new lamp or curtains. that pushback was the $43,000 paid for a scif because the epa administrator needed one in his office to do his job. >> the press account said you installed a $25,000 soundproof booth in your office at epa headquarters. is that true? >> it's a secure phone line. >> it's a scif, a sensitive compartmental information facility. >> yes. >> did you do that because it involves classified information. >> yes, ma'am, part o

a scif. already has a scif at their headquarters before scott pruitt got there, they had one. as far as we know it's not broken. but he argued separate and apart from the the one they had, he needed one of his own. he needed to spend $43,000 of taxpayer money so he could have one next to his desk for epa security emergencies. today the government accountability office put out a report about his magic sound booth. they determined they broke the law because it did go over that $5,000 spending cap for changing stuff up in his office. but then they also arrived at a much more difficult to explain conclusion. that super pricy state of the art scif that scott pruitt says he needs to do his job to protect his epa secrets. it might not be a scif. quote, the epa did not state whether the booth has been certified as a scif. ever since the epa started defending the sound booth to the taxpayers, nobody at the epa has been able to explain what makes it a scif, nobody has been able to show proof that it qu

why did we need another scif or scif-like facility when there is already one at your agency? >> it's not a scif and not intended to be, as i shared earlier, congressman, in an earlier question, i simply requested for a secure communication, secure line in my office, based upon phone calls that occurred that are confidential in nature and so based upon that instruction, process ensued where this investment took place. and that's -- >> did any of your predecessors suggest this be needed, republican or democratic? >> i'm unsure, congressman. >> i think the answer is no. it's either a yes or no. i don't demand just a yes or no. you're willing to elaborate. did any of your predecessors suggest this? i'm not a person here who requires a yes or no. i would like you to answer in detail did any of your predecessors require that? >> i'm not aware of any requests. >> i am -- i have the honorp representing a predecessor of yours in christine todd whitman a constituent of mine, administrator for the second president bush and she indicated she saw no need for such an enhanced telephone sys

when you were here we talked about the soundproof to scif at over $40,000. at that time you told me that your view was that expenditure was appropriate despite the fact there were two other scifs at the epa. is that correct? >> this is actually not a scif. >> well, whatever it is your soundproof booth. you expressed your view was appropriate? yes or no. >> i didn't express $43,000 was appropriate. >> you won't answer my question. 710 of the services and general appropriations act and anti-deficient act yes or no sir? >> general counsel at the agency. >> so you are not going to answer that question either. do you know whether anyone of your staff knew that that expenditure violated these two laws, yes or no, sir. >> they have indicated their opinion is it's not a violation. >> so you won't answer that question. if we can please give the witness a copy of the april 16th, 2018 letter. are you familiar with thatler from the jao, yes or no? >> i'm familiar with the jao decision, yes. >> thank you. and in that decision -- >> generally suspend for a moment. can we