washington — a house appropriations subcommittee grilled u.s. environmental protection agency administrator scott pruitt thursday afternoon on his deregulation agenda and spending habits.

even though pruitt is under fire amid a number of ethics scandals — including a $43,000 soundproof booth for his office, his below-market capitol hill condo rental from an energy lobbyist’s wife, and his reported retaliations against agency staff — democratic lawmakers mostly voiced concerns about what they see as the administrator’s gutting of environmental protections policies.

pruitt has announced a rollback to obama-era fuel economy standards and a proposal to repeal the clean power plan, which limits power plants’ carbon emissions. democratic lawmakers argued that would threaten public health.

“rolling back regulations that limit emissions will mean more cases of asthma in children,” said rep. betty mccollum, d-minn., the subcommittee ranking member. “that’s a fact. your approach is bad for the environment, bad for public health and bad for business.”

rep. chellie pingree, d-maine, also said her constituents experience high rates of asthma due to air pollution.

“we’re at the end of the tailpipe when it comes to the clean power plan,” pingree said. “we have ‘red alert’ days. and i have no idea why would you want to rollback limits on fuel emissions.”

but pruitt stood firm in the face of the criticism, telling lawmakers his vow to cut fuel economy standards came after a review of the previous administration’s standards, which he said were based on assumptions of market conditions that haven’t come true.

“what we don’t want to see happen is we set the standards so high that manufacturers manufacture cars that people don’t purchase,” pruitt said. “what happens is, people will stay in older vehicles, which actually increases emissions.”

the interior, environment, and related agencies subcommittee is made up of seven republicans and four democrats and is chaired by rep. ken calvert, a republican from california. the two-hour hearing also focused on the epa budget, which president trump wants to cut by 30%.

“we will not support president trump’s budget or your efforts to cripple the epa with draconian cuts,” rep. mccollum said.

pruitt defended the trump administration budget, saying the agency is “stripping burdensome costs” and making “transformational change.”

republicans used their time to stand up for pruitt and his actions as epa administrator. rep. evan jenkins, r-w.va., says his state’s coal economy has greatly improved since pruitt took over last year.

“your agency is restoring hope to the people of west virginia,” jenkins said. “what a difference, candidly, an election makes. i appreciate the good work of this administration getting us back in business.”

pruitt’s job security in trump’s fluid administration has been in question recently, amid his mounting ethics scandals. but pruitt has relentlessly implemented trump’s campaign deregulation promises, and the president continues to defend pruitt at least publicly. but democrats at the hearing questioned whether he’s fit for the job.

toward the end of the hearing, mccollum, the highest-ranking democrat on the panel, looked straight at pruitt and, speaking slowly, told the embattled administrator: “mr. pruitt, i think it’s time for you to resign.”

advantages of a new car classification for alternative fuel cars:
1. because the cars would not be allowed on interstates the government regulations on the new classification could be reduced. this would reduce cost barriers that make it prohibitive for new, american based companies to form.
2. less government regulations, plus a set engine size would reduce the weight of the car and improve range which is a problem for current electric vehicles that are forced to compete in the current car classification.
3. reduced cost will reduce retail price and increase market potential for the cars.
4. a “city” car classification is in line with current trends of people (especially younger professionals and many empty nesters) moving out of the suburbs and into cities.
5. will allow for greater competition, private investment and job growth and will excel the pace of innovation in the market segment.
6. will increase the awareness of the need to enforce traffic laws in our neighborhoods and commercial districts and will make it safer for other user groups (cyclist, pedestrians, user’s of public transportation) and thereby increase the number of users in these groups. also, a new car classification (and accompanying driver license classifications) would allow law enforcement the ability to reduce the license of dangerous drivers. there currently is no good system to enforce our traffic laws and this is why our roads have become so dangerous.

in short, the major automakers have always had an unfair advantage with a one car classification system and it has hurt innovation and has created a monopoly on our roads that has made our neighborhoods and commercial districts unsafe for other user groups. the government can invest in research of new technologies, but it does not have the money to fund the multitude of competing ideas that drives the innovation of new technologies.

however, through changes in laws/regulations, like creating a new “city” car classification, it is possible for the government to create the market conditions where free market forces can generate the private sector investments needed to drive innovation. this is an appropriate role of government, and rather than the government attempting to fund innovation it should concentrate on finding ways through changes in laws (and user taxes – not taxes based on income) to create market conditions that will drive the innovation of new green technologies.