Janittd Emma Smart WASHINGTON, DC 20510 April 10, 2013 The Honorable John Barrasso Chairman Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 410 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, DC. 20510 Dear Chairman Barrasso, We write to request that the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee immediately initiate bipartisan oversight hearings into the extent and justi?cation of security spending for Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt. Documents provided to us by EPA official(s) suggest the agency has relied on questionable "threats" to the Administrator, including reports of non-violent protests, negative feedback about the Administrator?s actions, or other First Amendment protected activity, tojustify millions of dollars in additional security spending, including ?rst-class air travel, as compared to his predecessors at the agency. These non- public documents include security threat assessments from the United States Secret Service that identify no ?reports of behaviors of interest? against Administrator Pruitt, and an internal EPA Intelligence Of?ce report that disputes the Administrator?s claims that the nature of the threats against him justify his expenditures. We are providing this information to you under con?dential cover in an abundance of caution to protect any specific ongoing security efforts. Administrator Pruitt has adopted numerous, unprecedented safety measures during his tenure at EPA: 24-? security staffed by a detail of as many as 20 EPA officers, first-class flights ostensibly to more effectively protect the Administrator while travelling by air, and a security sweep of and biometric locks for the Administrator?s office. The Associated Press reported this weekend that total security costs and associated travel expenses have already cost taxpayers $3 million.1 EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox was quoted on April 6 as saying the Administrator and his family have faced an ?unprecedented" number of death threats, a statement that was ampli?ed the following day by President Trump who stated that "Scott Pruitt has received death threats because of his bold actions at in its March 21, 2013 response to a February 15. 2018 letter from Senators Tom Carper and Gary Peters about the Administrator?s first-class ?ights, EPA wrote that its Protective Security Detail (PSD) ?has identi?ed specific, ongoing threats associated with the Administrator?s air travel" and has relied on assessments from Of?ce of Inspector General (EPA OIG) that the Administrator is facing more security threats than his predecessor. These assertions do not appear to be consistent with the non-public EPA documents we have obtained and enclose here. For example, one document we are providing to you is an October IT. 20] 7' memorandum from William Stull, Special Agent on the Administrator?s PSD, to Pasquale Nino Perrotta, the Michael Biesecket, sources: EPA chief spent millions on security and travel,? The Associated Press, April 7, 20 I 8 human-mun 7705a34l'da46. 2 F20 I 8%2 Fpolitics%2 Ftrump-pruitt-epa- tweet%2Findex.htm] Special Agent in Charge.3 The memo purports to summarize available threat information regarding Administrator Pruitt, claiming that the EPA 010 data showed 16 threatsdirected against the; Administrator, a 400% increase over threats in the previous fiscal yeara'gainst then-EPA .AdministratorGina McCarthy. A closer look at the description of manyof these threats. cast doubt that they appropriatelyjutitify- the kinds of security measures Mr. Pruitt has sought, as: they include: ?1 Protesters attempting-to disrupt a speech. given by Mr. Pruitt at a closed event. :1 A social media post in which an individual ?stated he is. not happy with some of'the Administrator is policies and wanted to express his displeasure.? 6. A postca1d sent to the Administrator stating CLIMATE CHANGE IS We are watching you. For the sake of ourplanet, our children 8a our g1 andch1ldren will you be a reasonable man? I repeat, We are watching you i? a An email. stating: ?Hi, I. am considering dumping the old paint. Ijust scraped off of my home- cutside your of?ce door on Tuesday.? a A letter-addressed to theAdministrater that-did not include ?overt threatening language? from an incarcerated individual. Notably, none of the incidents listed in this report concerned air travel and the only threat to Administrator Pruitt currently being prosecuted by-?a United .States Attorney?s was a threat made to him. and his predecessor Gina-McCarthy. The October assessmentalso statesthat at the time there known investigations underway concerning threats to Scott Pruitt? by the Joint'Terrorism Task Force, and that an. open-source-review. of social media uncovered ?no-evidence of a. direct threat to the Administrator?s life well- being.? we have also obtained, and are. providing to you, .a document dated February 14,2013, from Of?ce of Homeland Security Intelligence Team titted. ?Preliminary .l nteliigenCe Enterprise Threat Assessment Review,? which reviewed. the October 1'7, 201? memo. This memo concluded October .17 memo NOT employ sound analysis or articulate relevant ?threat specific? information appropriate to draw any resource or ievei of threat conclusions regarding the. protection posture for the'Administrator.? (Emphasis in The memo states that ?[u]sing all source intelligence has not identi?ed an)r specific credible direct th rent-to. the EPA. Administrator?? (Emphasis in original.) The Fe bruary 20.1 8' memo describes repeated efforts"by=- EPA Intelligence otiicials totei] EPA DIG and EPA is senior leadership that ?the ?threat.? to the Administrator was being inappropriately We. wrote to EPA. on March 1201.3, raising numerous concerns about Mr. Perrotta, including potential self- dealing, and. questioning his abilitytc run.- a security consulting. business while employed at EPA, We also raised concerns about how Mr. Per-rotta came to be Special Agent in Charge which have been heightened in light of recent reporting by the New York Times that Mr Perrotta predecessor, Eric Weese, was removed. from his position. for when he ?questioned- Mr?. Pruitt desire. to use ?ashing lights and sirens in his motorcade. Size Eric Lipton, Kenneth P. Vogel, Lisa Friedman, A Of?cials Sidelined After Questioning Scott Pruitt,? New York. Times; April 5, 2013. . We have not- yet received a response from EPA to that letter. 4' One role of thisof?ce ?is to identify potential vulnerabilities, and to'provide information and guidanceto. mitigate potential violent. actions evolving from inappropriate communications andfor threats that are directed at EPA promoted persons and facilities? Apparently it has been excluded from assessments and decision- making related to the? Administrator 5 securitv. This. suggests a breakdown of communication and coordination within EPA that shouldalso be an area of? inquiry by the EPW Committee mischaracterized by the Protective Service Detail (PSD) and the 010" and notes that EPA Intelligence has ?not seen any analysis to indicate why the Administrator would be at any greater risk on a commercial airline than any other passenger, or why a trained EPA PSD member could not protect the Administrator in a different location on the aircraft [than in the business or ?rst-class section].? Intelligence Team requested from the United States Secret Service a ?Direction of Interest Query? on February 2 2017 and on February 22, 20l 8 for potential threats against Administrator Pruitt. Neither query returned any ?reports of behaviors of interest directed toward EPA Administrator Pruitt." We have provided you both United States Secret Service reports with this letter. It is hard to reconcile the public statements of EPA, and the President, with these internal and external assessments. it may be that the materials we have been provided are incomplete and that EPA has additional information thatjustifies its public position. However, another view is that certain factions within EPA have justi?ed the exorbitant taxpayer spending incurred by the Administrator?s ?rst?class travel and large entourage of security personnel through unsubstantiated claims about threats to his security, either at the direction of the Administrator himself or others in the agency. Either way. the EPW Committee has a responsibility to look into these matters. As you review this information, we urge you to remind EPA of its obligations under the Whistleblowers Protection Act, as amended. In our view, the documents provided to us may constitute evidence of a ?violation of law, rule, regulation, gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety."5 As such, any adverse personnel action against a person providing this information to Congress is prohibited, and it is in our shared interest that these rights be protected. We thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and look forward to working with you. Sincerely, Thomas R. Carper on hi ouse United States SenatorV United States Senator cc: Arthur A. Elkins, Jr., Inspector General, Environmental Protection Agency 5 5 U.S.C. 2302(1)}