Nominees for federal positions routinely answer written questions after their hearing. The answers are usually careful, occasionally evasive, and almost always responsive to the question asked.
The current nominee to lead the Fish and Wildlife Service returned answers to twenty-two questions this week. Fourteen of them read, in full: "I am not able to comment on an open rulemaking."
That response is defensible for questions about the merits of the rescission. Eight of the fourteen were not about the merits.
The eight
They included whether the nominee had been briefed on the working group's assessment, whether the Service had considered seeking a waiver of the reopening requirement, and how many times the nominee had personally discussed the docket with the Department of Energy.
None of those concern the substance of the rule. All received the same nine words.
"You can decline to discuss a rulemaking. It is harder to explain declining to say whether you have read something."
A former Interior official who reviewed the responses
A spokesperson for the nominee said the responses were reviewed by department counsel and reflect standard practice during an open proceeding.
Asked when the proceeding is expected to close, the spokesperson referred us to the docket.