[Senate Hearing 115-1]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-1
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
JANUARY 18, 2017
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
S. Hrg. 115-1
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JANUARY 18, 2017
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
24-034 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
JERRY MORAN, Kansas CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
JONI ERNST, Iowa TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska KAMALA HARRIS, California
Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JANUARY 18, 2017
OPENING STATEMENTS
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 1
Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware.. 4
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 10
Lankford, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma.... 13
WITNESS
Pruitt, Hon. Scott, Attorney General, State of Oklahoma,
nominated to be Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 15
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Booker........................................... 740
Senator Cardin........................................... 751
Senator Carper........................................... 776
Response to an additional question from Senator Duckworth.... 827
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Gillibrand....................................... 828
Senator Markey........................................... 843
Senator Merkley.......................................... 879
Senator Sanders.......................................... 897
Senator Sullivan......................................... 934
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 936
List of cases Mr. Pruitt joined, initiated, and amicus....... 982
Mr. Pruitt's testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Technology, Information
Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement
Reform of the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, June 28, 2012....................... 994
Before the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and
Entitlements, July 31, 2013............................ 1018
Before the Senate Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear Safety, May 5,
2015................................................... 1021
Before a Joint Hearing of the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works and House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure...................... 1026
Article: The Next Supreme Court Justice, by Scott Pruitt..... 1029
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letters:
To Scott Pruitt from Senator Whitehouse et al., December 27,
2016....................................................... 642
An Open Letter to President-elect Trump and the 115th
Congress from Science and the Public Interest.............. 644
To President-elect Trump and Members of Congress from Second
Nature, January 17, 2017................................... 648
To Senator Boozman from The Poultry Federation............... 656
Letters and other material in support of Scott Pruitt's becoming
EPA Administrator:
From the Cornwall Alliance, January 5, 2017.................. 659
From the American Energy Alliance et al., January 12, 2017... 665
From the Agricultural Retailers Association et al., January
17, 2017................................................... 667
From the Agricultural Retailers Association, January 9, 2017. 668
From the Alabama Cattlemen's Association et al., January 10,
2017....................................................... 669
From the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, January
17, 2017................................................... 670
From the Office of the Attorney General, State of Alabama et
al., January 4, 2017....................................... 672
From the Energy and Environment Cabinet, Commonwealth of
Kentucky, January 17, 2017................................. 675
From the National Association of Home Builders, January 12,
2017....................................................... 680
From U.S. Representative Mullin et al., January 10, 2017..... 683
From the American Farm Bureau Federation, January 4, 2017.... 684
From the Specialty Equipment Market Association, January 13,
2017....................................................... 686
From The Fertilizer Institute, January 17, 2017.............. 688
From the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, January 17,
2017....................................................... 690
From the Western Energy Alliance, January 13, 2017........... 692
Other material in support of Scott Pruitt's becoming EPA
Administrator:
Statement from the American Energy Alliance, January 12, 2017 663
Press release from President-elect Trump, January 5, 2017.... 677
Press release from the Cornwall Alliance, January 16, 2017... 681
Attorneys General in Support of Pruitt....................... 694
Farmers in Support of Pruitt................................. 720
HEARING ON NOMINATION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL SCOTT PRUITT TO BE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
----------
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan,
Cardin, Sanders, Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker,
Markey, Duckworth, and Harris.
Also present: Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
order.
We have quite a full house today. I welcome the audience.
This is a formal Senate hearing, and in order to allow the
Committee to conduct its business, we will maintain decorum.
That means if there are disorders, demonstrations by a member
of the audience, the person causing the disruption will be
escorted from the room by the Capitol Police.
Since this is our first hearing of this session, I would
like to welcome our new members, Senators Jerry Moran, Joni
Ernst, Tammy Duckworth, and Kamala Harris. Thank you very much,
and congratulations in joining the Committee.
I would also like to welcome Senator Tom Carper in his new
role as the Ranking Member of the Committee. You are here, even
if you have a scratchy throat, 40 years from when you were
Treasurer of Delaware, Member of Congress, Governor, member of
the U.S. Senate. Have not missed a day. You are Cal Ripken,
Jr., and the iron man. So thanks for being here. Thank you. I
look forward to working with you.
He deserves applause.
With regard to procedure, we will follow the early bird
rule in terms of the order of member questions. Members who
were here at the start, as you all are, will be placed in the
line based on your seniority on the Committee. Members who
arrive after the hearing has started will be added to the line
in the order they arrive.
With respect to today's hearing, we will abide by the
Committee's 5-minute rule. The 5 minutes includes not just the
questions but also the nominee's answers, so I ask our members
to please leave enough time for the nominee to answer your
question. Today we will have many rounds of questions as are
necessary so that members' questions are answered.
Today's hearing is to consider the nomination of the
Attorney General of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt, to be the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Attorney
General Pruitt has been a distinguished public servant as well,
and we will hear the same from his fellow Oklahomans today. He
served 8 years in the Oklahoma State Senate before being
elected Attorney General of Oklahoma in November 2010, where he
still serves.
There are numerous statements from his peers and the people
that he has helped over the years that stand as a testament to
his strong qualifications to run the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Twenty-four State attorneys general wrote to both Ranking
Member Carper and to me stating that ``As attorneys general, we
understand the need to work collaboratively to address threats
to our environment that cross State lines as well as the
importance of a Federal counterpart in the EPA Administrator
who possesses the knowledge, experience, and principles to work
with our States to address issues affecting our environment. We
believe that no one exemplifies these qualities more than Scott
Pruitt.''
Now, Attorney General Pruitt has taken on polluters,
including the oil industry, when there was cause. Randy Ellis,
an award winning investigative reporter with the Oklahoman
newspaper, praised Pruitt for his ability to take on industry.
The paper highlighted the work of Attorney General Pruitt to
hold a large oil company accountable. This is what Ellis
stated. He said, ``Mr. Pruitt demonstrated that he will take on
industry when they overstep when he sued oil companies such as
BP who knowingly double dipped by collecting reimbursements for
corrective action environmental costs for sites that they
polluted.''
This is why I believe President-elect Trump nominated
Attorney General Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA, under the leadership
of a qualified and responsible Administrator, is a vital tool
that must be used to protect the air we breathe, the water we
drink, and the communities where our families live. It is truly
a sacred trust.
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that Attorney
General Pruitt has the right experience for the position.
Attorney General Pruitt understands the need to both protect
the environment, while allowing our Nation's economy to grow.
The agency needs a leader who will follow the laws created by
this Committee.
During the last 8 years EPA Administrators created broad
and legally questionable new regulations which have undermined
the American people's faith in the Agency. These regulations
have done great damage to the livelihoods of our Nation's
hardest working citizens. The regulatory zeal of the last 8
years has violated a fundamental principle of environmental
stewardship, which is do no harm. This failed environmental
leadership has contributed to two of the worst Government-
created environmental disasters in decades: the Gold King Mine
spill and Flint, Michigan's water crisis. Those disasters hurt
people, many from low income and minority communities who can
least afford it.
As I have discussed with Attorney General Pruitt, my home
State of Wyoming is a leading energy producing State. We have
abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, crude oil, and uranium.
These industries provide thousands of good paying jobs for
Wyoming communities. We are also, in my opinion, one of the
most beautiful States in the Nation. We are home to Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks and numerous national forests
and pristine lakes and waterways. Our wildlife population is
diverse and abundant. We have thriving populations of grizzly
bears, wolves, elk, and bison. People travel from around the
world to come to Wyoming because our State's natural resources
are spectacular.
Wyoming has managed to strike that balance between our
environment and our economy, and it shows. For 8 years Wyoming
has suffered under an EPA that didn't believe in striking a
balance. As EPA regulations crushed energy jobs in my State;
State revenue fell that pays for State programs. This includes
paying for our vital environmental programs. Clearly, a
wholesale change is needed. Any new Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency needs to protect the
environment in a responsible way that doesn't ignore the good
work that States do to protect their air, land, and water, as
well as their economies.
At this time I would like to ask Ranking Member Senator
Carper for an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Senator Barrasso follows:]
Statement of Hon. John Barrasso,
U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming
Today we consider the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney
General Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Attorney General Pruitt has been a distinguished public
servant, as we have heard from his fellow Oklahomans.
He served 8 years in the Oklahoma State Senate before being
elected Attorney General of Oklahoma in November 2010, where he
still serves.
There are numerous statements from his peers and the people
he has helped over the years that stand as a testament to his
strong qualifications to run the Environmental Protection
Agency.
Twenty-four State attorneys general wrote to both Senator
Carper and to me, stating that: ``As attorneys general, we
understand the need to work collaboratively to address threats
to our environment that cross State lines as well as the
importance of a Federal counterpart in the EPA Administrator
who possesses the knowledge, experience, and principles to work
with our States to address issues affecting our environment. We
believe that no one exemplifies these qualities more than Scott
Pruitt.''
Attorney General Pruitt has taken on polluters, including
the oil industry, when there is cause.
Randy Ellis, an award winning investigative reporter with
The Oklahoman newspaper, praised Pruitt and his ability to take
on industry; the paper highlighted the work of Attorney General
Pruitt to hold a large oil company accountable.
This is what Ellis stated: ``Mr. Pruitt demonstrated that
he will take on industry when they overstep when he sued oil
companies such as BP who `knowingly double-dipped by collecting
reimbursements for corrective action environmental costs for
sites they polluted.' ''
This is why I believe President-elect Trump nominated
Attorney General Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA, under the leadership of a qualified and
responsible Administrator, is a vital tool that must be used to
protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, and the
communities where our families live.
It's truly a sacred trust.
Colleagues on both sides of the aisle say that Attorney
General Pruitt has the right experience for the position.
Attorney General Pruitt understands the need to both
protect the environment while allowing our Nation's economy to
grow.
The agency needs a leader who will follow the laws created
by this Committee.
During the last 8 years EPA Administrators created broad
and legally questionable new regulations which have undermined
the American people's faith in the agency. These regulations
have done great damage to the livelihoods of our Nation's
hardest working citizens.
The regulatory zeal of the last 8 years has violated a
fundamental principle of environmental stewardship--which is do
no harm.
This failed environmental leadership has contributed to two
of the worst Government created environmental disasters in
decades--the Gold King Mine spill and Flint, Michigan's water
crisis.
Those disasters hurt the people, many from low income and
minority communities, who can least afford it.
So I've discussed with Attorney General Pruitt, my home
State of Wyoming is a leading energy producing State. We have
abundant supplies of coal, natural gas, crude oil, and uranium.
These industries provide thousands of good paying jobs for
Wyoming communities.
We are also, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful
States in the Nation. We are home to Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks, and numerous national forests and
pristine lakes and waterways.
Our wildlife population is diverse and abundant. We have
thriving populations of grizzly bears, wolves, elk, and bison.
People travel from around the world to come to Wyoming
because our State's natural resources are spectacular.
Wyoming has managed to strike that balance between our
environment and our economy, and it shows.
For 8 years Wyoming has suffered under an EPA that didn't
believe in striking a balance. As EPA regulations crushed
energy jobs in my State, State revenue fell that pays for State
programs. This includes paying for our vital environmental
programs.
Clearly a wholesale change is needed. Any new Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency needs to protect the
environment in a responsible way that doesn't ignore the good
work that States do to protect their air, land, and water, as
well as their economies.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing us
here today. Thank you for your kind words, as well.
Let me begin by welcoming our nominee, his wife Marlyn, and
his children, Cade and McKenna, to what is a very important
hearing.
Mr. Pruitt, this past Sunday morning I rose at dawn. I went
for a long run, took me through a beautiful State park in the
northern part of Delaware. I reached the park at sunrise, just
as the sun was coming up and the sky was turning a brilliant
blue. The winter air was crisp and clear. Wildlife was all
around. In a word, it was perfect.
As I ran, I said a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of
this moment. Later that morning, my wife and I went to church.
There we joined our congregation in singing a hymn that began
with these words: ``For the beauty of the earth, for the glory
of the skies, for the love which from our birth over and around
us lies, Lord of all, to these we raise this our hymn of
grateful praise.''
Those words filled my heart with emotion then, and they do
so again this morning.
In little more than 48 hours, Donald Trump will place his
hand on a Bible. He will take an oath to defend our country and
Constitution. That Bible reminds us repeatedly to love our
neighbors as ourselves, and it answers the question who is my
neighbor. Also found in those pages are scores of admonitions
about another obligation that those of us who live on this
Earth are expected to meet. Simply put, we are to serve as
stewards of this planet. I believe that we have a moral
obligation to do so.
A great many of my colleagues in the Senate agree, and so
do most Americans. We need to be convinced that you embrace it
as well; not just with your words, but with your deeds. Much of
your record suggests otherwise. And today, and in the days that
follow, we need to find out where the truth lies.
Leading the Environmental Protection Agency is hard work.
That Agency, created by President Richard Nixon and a
bipartisan Congress 46 years ago, is tasked with implementing
our Nation's most important clean air, clean water, and safe
chemical laws. The EPA is required to use sound science to
protect both our environment and our public health. By and
large the EPA has done this successfully for decades while our
economy has continued to grow.
Many in this room today may not remember a time before the
EPA, a time when States had to work individually to protect
citizens and the community in which they live, a time before
the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were signed into law, a
time when businesses operating throughout the U.S. were faced
with a myriad of conflicting State and local laws affecting our
health and our environment. The choking smog and soot of a
half-century ago seem unfathomable now. Rivers on fire and
deadly toxic plumes sound like something from another world,
impossible in our United States of America.
Today we have the luxury of largely forgetting these
frightening circumstances thanks to the efforts of the
Environmental Protection Agency, its employees, partnership
with State and local agencies and with companies across
America. In fact the EPA and its many partners throughout this
country have been so successful that it is easy for some of us
to forget just why this Agency is so critical. For some it is
also easy to presume that there is not much more for the Agency
to do, and that just could not be further from the truth.
The environmental threats that we face today are real, and
they don't respect State boundaries. As we consider a nominee
to run our Nation's foremost environmental agency it is worth
reminding everyone here why the mission of the EPA is so
critical and just what is at stake.
Over time, my State of Delaware has made great strides in
cleaning up our own air pollution, but our work only goes so
far. Delaware, like many States on the East Coast, sits at the
end of what is known as America's tailpipe. Ninety percent of
the air pollution in Delaware comes from outside of the First
State, from power plants hundreds of miles away in places like
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest.
As Governor of Delaware, if I had eliminated every source
of air pollution with my State, stopped every combustion source
and ordered every motor vehicle off the roads, Delaware would
still have faced deadly doses of air pollution. Should children
and others in Delaware really be forced to live with the
consequences of decisions made by polluters hundreds or even
thousands of miles away who gain economically from our
disadvantage? I don't think so.
Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something
called the Good Neighbor Rule to make sure that all States do
their fair share to clean up the air. Every citizen in this
country has the right to breathe clean air, regardless of
whether they are in a downwind or upwind State. That is why we
have the EPA.
I remember fishing as a boy with my dad along the Dan
River, near my hometown of Danville, Virginia. We brought home
the fish that we caught to eat, and my mom and sister ate them
as well. Today that quintessential American pastime comes with
a warning label. That river, along with countless other
polluted streams, rivers, and lakes in all 50 States are
subject to public health advisories cautioning citizens against
eating the mercury-laden fish found in them.
We have known for decades that most of the mercury in our
fish comes from air pollution that is emitted from the dirtiest
coal plants and then settles in our waterways. We also know
that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in the
human body over time, threatening the health of this
environment and this generation and for generations to come.
The EPA recently issued public health protections to clean
up the toxic air pollution from our dirtiest coal plants,
allowing families in Delaware and thousands of other
communities to once again eat the fish from our rivers, our
lakes, our streams without concern of mercury poisoning. That
is why we have the EPA.
Too often, when State and local communities are pinched for
cash, they try to save money by short-changing clean air and
clean water protections, and improvements to water
infrastructure are oftentimes ignored. Corners are cut;
solutions are adopted that may save dollars now but inflict
costly and unnecessary damage later. As we have seen most
recently in the city of Flint, Michigan, these cuts can have a
terrible--even a tragic--impact on the health of the most
vulnerable in our society, especially the youngest among us.
Today, the citizens of Flint still lack clean drinking
water, and the new generation there which has been exposed to
high levels of lead faces an uncertain future. That is why we
have the EPA.
You may not know it, Mr. Pruitt, but Delaware is the lowest
lying State in our Nation. The highest point in Delaware is a
bridge. Back home the reality that our climate is changing is
not up for grabs or up for debate. Families and business owners
face the stark reality of climate change every single day, and
tackling that challenge is not just the right thing to do, what
is best for Delaware's economy; it is a matter of survival.
Take a ride with me sometime some 30 miles south of Dover
Air Force Base, heading east toward the Delaware Bay, on Prime
Hook Road, and you will see what I mean. There was a time not
long ago where, just before you reached the Delaware Bay, you
came to a parking lot. Today that parking lot is under water.
Stand there with me, looking to the east, and you will see part
of a concrete bunker slipping out of the water. Recently,
someone showed me a photo taken of that bunker in 1947, the
year I was born. It was on dry land, 500 feet west of the
water's edge. Five hundred feet west.
But our little State alone cannot stem the flow of
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that is largely causing
our climate to change, our seas to rise, and our coastline to
retreat. Every State must do its fair share to safeguard our
climate and their neighbors. That is why we have the EPA.
Examples of air and water pollution produced by one State
and fouling the air and water of others can still be found in
too many parts of America, like the runoff from Pennsylvania
that degrades the waters of the Chesapeake Bay or the haze
exported from other States that oftentimes shrouds the Smokey
Mountains and degrades visibility at the Grand Canyon. That is
why we have the EPA.
Some of my colleagues describe me as recovering Governor.
For the most part I believe that Governors and Presidents
deserve deference in picking the members of their leadership
teams, and as a result I have given Presidents of both parties
that deference in most instances. Since coming to the Senate in
2001 I have opposed only one of the nominees for EPA
administrator; supporting two Republicans, two Democrats
nominees. Subsequently, every EPA administrator that I have
supported demonstrated clearly that they were committed to
furthering the overall mission of the EPA, protecting human
health and our environment.
I am also committed to a full and fair confirmation process
with respect to our nominations that this President-elect has
offered, too.
Having said that, though, I have shared with Mr. Pruitt--
and I will share with my colleagues today--that too much of
what I have seen of his record of the environment and his views
about the role of EPA are troubling, and in some cases deeply
troubling. Even former Republican EPA Administrator Christie
Whitman, with whom I served for 7 years as Governor of
neighboring States, recently said that she ``can't recall ever
having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of
the Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.''
Let me conclude with this. It is hard to imagine a more
damning statement, and from one who served not long ago in that
position of trust, Mr. Pruitt, to which you have been
nominated. Today is your opportunity to show us that she has
gotten it wrong. To be honest with you, coming to this hearing
today, I fear that she has gotten it right.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:]
Statement of Hon. Thomas R. Carper,
U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware
We are gathered here today to consider the nomination of
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Let me begin by
welcoming the nominee, his wife Marlyn, and their children Cade
and McKenna to this important hearing.
Mr. Pruitt, this past Sunday morning I rose at dawn and
went for a long run that took me through a beautiful State park
in northern Delaware. I reached the park at sunrise as the sky
was turning a brilliant blue. The winter air was crisp and
clear. Wildlife was all around. In a word, it was perfect.
As I ran, I said a prayer of thanksgiving for the gift of
that moment. Later that morning, my wife and I went to church.
There we joined our congregation in singing a hymn that began
with these words: ``For the beauty of the earth, for the glory
of the skies, for the love which from our birth over and around
us lies. Lord of all to thee we raise, this our hymn of
grateful praise.'' Those words filled my heart with emotion
then, and they do so again this morning.
In a little more than 48 hours Donald Trump will place his
hand on a Bible and take an oath to defend our country and
Constitution. That Bible reminds us repeatedly to love our
neighbors as ourselves, and it answers the question, ``Who is
my neighbor?'' Also found in those pages are scores of
admonitions about another obligation that those of us who live
on this earth are expected to meet. Simply put, we are to serve
as stewards of this planet.
I believe that we have a moral obligation to do so. A great
many of my colleagues in the Senate agree. So do most
Americans. We need to be convinced that you embrace it, as
well, not just with your words, but with your deeds. Much of
your record suggests otherwise. Today, and in the days that
follow, we need to find where the truth lies.
Leading the Environmental Protection Agency is hard work.
That agency--created by President Nixon and a bipartisan
Congress 46 years ago--is tasked with implementing our Nation's
most important clean air, clean water, and safe chemical laws.
The EPA is required to use sound science to protect both
our environment and our public health. By and large, the EPA
has done this successfully for decades, while our economy has
continued to grow.
Many in this room today may not remember a time before the
EPA: a time when States had to work individually to protect
citizens and the communities in which they lived. A time before
the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were signed into law. A
time when businesses operating throughout the U.S. were faced
with a myriad of conflicting State and local laws affecting our
health and environment.
The choking smog and soot of a half-century ago seems
unfathomable now. Rivers on fire and deadly, toxic plumes sound
like something from another world--impossible in our United
States.
Today, we have the luxury of largely forgetting these
frightening circumstances thanks to the efforts of the EPA and
its employees, in partnership with State and local agencies and
with companies across America. In fact the EPA and its many
partners throughout this country have been so successful that
it's easy for some of us to forget just why this agency is so
critical. For some it's also easy to presume there's not much
more for the agency to do. That could not be further from the
truth.
The environmental threats we face today are real, and they
don't respect State boundaries. As we consider a nominee to run
our Nation's foremost environmental agency, it's worth
reminding everyone here why the mission of the EPA is so
critical and just what's at stake.
Over time, my State of Delaware has made great strides in
cleaning up our own air pollution, but our work only goes so
far.
Delaware, like many States on the East Coast, sits at the
end of what's known as ``America's tailpipe.'' Ninety percent
of the air pollution in Delaware comes from outside the First
State--from power plants hundreds of miles away in places like
Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest.
As Governor of Delaware--even if I had eliminated every
source of air pollution within our State by stopping every
combustion source and ordering every motor vehicle off of our
roads--Delawareans still would have faced deadly doses of air
pollution. Should children and others in Delaware really be
forced to live with the consequences of decisions made by
polluters hundreds--or even thousands--of miles from us? I
don't think so.
Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something
called the Good Neighbor rule to make sure that all States do
their fair share to clean up the air. Every citizen in this
country has a right to breathe clean air, regardless of whether
they live in a downwind or upwind State. That is why we have
the EPA.
I remember fishing as a boy with my father along the Dan
River near my hometown of Danville, Virginia. We brought home
the fish we caught to eat. My mom and sister ate them, too.
Today that quintessential American pastime comes with a warning
label. That river, along with countless other polluted streams,
rivers, and lakes in all 50 States, are subject to public
health advisories cautioning citizens against eating the
mercury-laden fish found in them.
We've known for decades that most of the mercury in our
fish comes from the air pollution that is emitted from the
dirtiest coal plants and then settles in our waterways. We also
know that mercury is a powerful neurotoxin that accumulates in
the human body over time, threatening the health of this
generation and generations to come.
The EPA recently issued public health protections to clean
up the toxic air pollution from our dirtiest coal plants,
allowing families in Danville and thousands of other
communities to once again eat the fish from our rivers, lakes,
and streams without concerns of mercury poisoning. That's why
we have the EPA.
Too often, when States and local communities are pinched
for cash, they try to save money by shortchanging clean air and
clean water protections. Improvements to water infrastructure
are often ignored, corners are cut, and solutions are adopted
that may save dollars now but inflict costly and unnecessary
damage later.
As we've seen most recently in the city of Flint, Michigan,
these cuts can have a terrible--and even tragic--impact on the
health of the most vulnerable in our society, especially the
youngest among them. Today the citizens of Flint still lack
clean drinking water, and a new generation there, which has
been exposed to high levels of lead, faces an uncertain future.
That's why we have the EPA.
You may not know it, Mr. Pruitt, but Delaware is the lowest
lying State in our Nation. The highest point in the First State
is a bridge. Back home the reality that our climate is changing
is not up for debate. Families and business owners face the
stark realities of climate change every single day. Tackling
that challenge is not just the right thing to do or what is
best for Delaware's economy. It's a matter of survival.
Take a ride with me some 30 miles south of the Dover Air
Force Base heading east toward the Delaware Bay on Prime Hook
Road, and you'll see what I mean. There was a time not long ago
when just before you reached the Bay you came to a parking lot.
Today, that parking lot is under water. Stand there with me
looking to the east and you'll see part of a concrete bunker
sticking up out of the Bay. Recently, someone showed me a photo
taken of that bunker in 1947, the year I was born. It was on
dry land, 500 feet west of the water's edge.
But our little State alone cannot stem the flow of
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that is largely causing
our climate to change, our seas to rise, and our coastlines to
retreat. Every State must do its fair share to safeguard our
climate and their neighbors. That's why we have the EPA.
Examples of air and water pollution produced by one State
and fouling the air and water of others can still be found in
too many parts of America, like the runoff from Pennsylvania
that degrades the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Or the haze--
exported from other States--that oftentimes shrouds the Smoky
Mountains and degrades visibility at the Grand Canyon. That's
why we have the EPA.
Some of my colleagues describe me as a ``recovering''
Governor. For the most part I believe that Governors and
Presidents deserve deference in picking the members of their
leadership teams. As a result I've given Presidents of both
parties that deference in most instances.
Since coming to the Senate in 2001 I have opposed only one
nominee for EPA Administrator--supporting two Republican
nominees and two Democratic nominees. Subsequently, every EPA
Administrator nominee that I've supported demonstrated clearly
that they were committed to furthering the overall mission of
the EPA--protecting human health and our environment.
I am also committed to a full and fair confirmation process
with respect to the nominations of this President-elect, too.
Having said that, though, I've shared with Mr. Pruitt, and I'll
share with my colleagues, that too much of what I've seen of
his record on the environment and his views about the role of
the EPA are troubling, and in some cases deeply troubling.
Even former Republican EPA Administrator Christie Whitman--
with whom I served for 7 years as Governors of neighboring
States--recently said that she can't `` . . . recall ever
having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of
the agency and the science behind what the agency does.''
It's hard to imagine a more damning statement and from one
who served, not that long ago, in the position of trust, Mr.
Pruitt, to which you have been nominated.
Today is your opportunity to show that she's gotten it
wrong. But to be honest with you, coming into this hearing
today, I fear that she's gotten it right.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
In a few moments I would like to turn to Senators Inhofe
and Lankford from their home State of Oklahoma regarding the
nominee's distinguished career. Before I do that, though, I
want to say a few words about Senator Inhofe and his
distinguished career as chairman of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee.
First, I want to thank my friend, Jim Inhofe, for his
leadership of this Committee. His dedication to protecting the
environment, rebuilding our Nation's infrastructure,
strengthening the country's economy was clearly evident
throughout his time as Chairman. He worked across party lines
to get things done. During the 114th Congress, under Jim
Inhofe's leadership this Committee held 67 hearings. Of those,
8 were field hearings. Thirty-two bills passed out of the
Committee that were signed into law.
Chairman Inhofe oversaw the first long-term highway bill in
a decade. This law will improve the Nation's roads, bridges,
transit systems, and rail transportation networks. He also
worked on a bipartisan basis with former Ranking Member Barbara
Boxer to pass badly needed Water Resources Development Act
legislation. This new law prioritizes dam, waterway, and port
construction projects, and it supports flood control projects
that protect millions of people.
For the first time in 40 years the Toxic Substances Control
Act was modernized under Chairman Inhofe's tenure. This law
enacts a new uniform regulatory program that will improve
public confidence in the safety of chemicals, promote
innovation, and provide manufacturers with certainty regarding
regulation.
Chairman Inhofe also worked to keep the Administration
accountable. Chairman Inhofe worked to ensure that there was
oversight of overreaching Administration regulations concerning
the Clean Power Plan, Waters of the U.S., the Stream Buffer
Rule, coal ash regulations, and many more.
So I am very glad that Senator Inhofe will remain on the
Committee. I look forward to working closely with him to
protect our environment and bolster our Nation's economy.
Senator Inhofe, thank you for your hard work, your
dedication, and your leadership.
Senator Inhofe, you are now recognized to introduce and
talk about Attorney General Pruitt.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Senator Barrasso, thank you very much, and
I am looking forward to working in a very senior position on
your Committee. This is the Committee that gets things done, as
Scott Pruitt is fully aware.
I thank you, Chairman Barrasso, and also you, Senator
Carper, for letting me join you for this, and I am honored to
join my fellow Senator, Senator Lankford, in introducing not
just the Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, but my good friend,
and to offer my support for his nomination to be the next
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Though neither of us was born in Oklahoma, we got here as
quick as we could, and both ended up in Tulsa, so he is also a
neighbor. Attorney General Pruitt, you will be glad to know
this, he was born in Kentucky. He showed what he was made out
of and ended up a great baseball player that was able to get a
scholarship and go through the university there. Then he came
to Oklahoma, went through law school at the University of
Tulsa, and did all kinds of things, specialized at that time in
constitutional law.
In 1998 General Pruitt ran and was elected to the Oklahoma
State Senate, where he served 6 years and he quickly became a
leader. Indeed, success has followed him throughout his law
practice to the State Senate, to become the co-owner and
manager, managing general partner of Oklahoma City's AAA minor
league baseball team--see, we have something in addition to the
Thunder that we are all fully aware of--and is currently
Oklahoma's Attorney General.
Through the course of his career, Attorney General Pruitt
has stood out as a champion of State and individual rights and
has fought against Federal overreach. He has earned a
reputation as a defender of the rule of law and has worked to
keep the role of the Federal Government in check. As head of
the Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney General Pruitt
will ensure that the Agency fulfills the role delegated to it
by the laws passed by Congress, nothing more and nothing less.
Oklahoma is an energy and agricultural State, but we are
also a State that knows what it means to protect the
environment while balancing competing interests. As Attorney
General, Scott was instrumental--oh, this is a big deal. We
actually have had an ongoing litigation for 100 years; it was
the State of Oklahoma, the city of Oklahoma City, the Choctaw
Nation, the Chickasaw Nation. It was over water rights. We
weren't able to resolve that problem. This guy comes trotting
along and resolves it overnight after 100 years of failures of
trying to get this done.
He has also worked with Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to
protect the scenic rivers. He is kind of a hero of the scenic
rivers place. People don't know, Scott, that we in Oklahoma
actually have more miles of freshwater shoreline----
[Interruption from audience.]
Senator Barrasso. I would ask the Senator to please suspend
his remarks for a few seconds.
[Interruption from audience.]
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. They obviously don't like scenic rivers,
but we do in Oklahoma.
Anyway, additionally, in 2012 Oklahoma partnered with four
other States--New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, and Texas--to bring
together State official conservation groups, energy and ag
industries, and other private landowners to address the
challenges facing one of the problems that we have there having
to do with what might become an endangered species. It was an
effort that saw success in its first year. Now, this is working
with four different States. Despite endorsing the plan, the
Fish and Wildlife Service moved forward with listing the
species as threatened, endangering the cooperation reached
between these varying interests.
So Attorney General Pruitt sued the Fish and Wildlife
Department for ignoring the unique cooperative agreement, and
he won. He wins. He wins these things.
Yes, as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, the oil companies, and the
outgoing Administration on many fronts. But all of these suits
were brought to protect State and local interests from
overzealous and activist executive agencies.
Over the last 8 years the Obama administration has advanced
a radical environmental agenda, has exhibited a deep distrust
of State governments and private landowners, and has worked to
obstruct the fossil fuel industry and agriculture producers,
the most ardent protectors of the environment. These are
industries and interests that Oklahoma relies on, and far from
being an enemy of the environment Scott has proven himself to
be an expert at balancing economic growth with environmental
stewardship.
So it is my belief that Attorney General Pruitt will return
the Environmental Protection Agency to its proper role as a
steward for the environment, acting within the bounds
prescribed by Congress and the Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and
colleagues for this opportunity. I am honored to introduce my
friend, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, and to offer my
support for his nomination to be the next Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Though neither of us were born
in Oklahoma, we both got there as fast as we could and made the
Tulsa area our home.
Attorney General Pruitt grew up in Kentucky and was enough
of a baseball standout in high school to earn a scholarship to
the University of Kentucky where he earned the reputation for
being driven and a winner. Attorney General Pruitt finished his
undergrad at Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky, and
then graduated from law school at the University of Tulsa in
1993, where he remained and became a practicing attorney
specializing in Constitutional Law.
In 1998 Attorney General Pruitt ran and was elected to the
Oklahoma State Senate where he served for 6 years. He quickly
became a standout of the party. Indeed, success has followed
him from his law practice, to the State Senate, to become co-
owner and managing general partner of Oklahoma City's Triple-A
minor league baseball team, and currently as Oklahoma's
Attorney General.
Through the course of his career Attorney General Pruitt
has stood out as a champion of State and individual rights and
has fought against Federal overreach. He has earned a
reputation as a defender of the rule of law and has worked to
keep the role of the Federal Government in check.
As head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Attorney
General Pruitt will ensure that the agency fulfills the role
delegated to it by the laws passed by Congress--nothing more,
nothing less. Oklahoma is an energy and agriculture State, but
we're also a State that knows what it means to protect the
environment while balancing competing interests.
As Attorney General, Scott was instrumental in negotiating
a water rights settlement between the State, Oklahoma City, and
the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations--a dispute that dates back to
the 19th century. The negotiated settlement maintains tribal
sovereignty and environmental conservation guidelines while
also guaranteeing Oklahoma City's access to a vital drinking
water source.
He has also worked with the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to
protect Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers from upstream pollution. In
fact the executive director of DEQ credits Attorney General
Pruitt's actions and insistence on using sound science with the
fact that Oklahoma's desired water standard was preserved.
Additionally, in 2012 Oklahoma partnered with New Mexico,
Colorado, Kansas, and Texas to bring together State officials,
conservation groups, energy and agricultural industries, and
other private landowners to address the challenges facing the
lesser prairie-chicken--an effort that saw success in its first
year and continues to do so. Despite endorsing the plan the
Fish and Wildlife Service moved forward with listing the
species as threatened, endangering the cooperation reached by
these varying interests. As Attorney General, Scott sued the
Fish and Wildlife Service for ignoring this unique cooperative
agreement and won.
Yes, as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt has fought the EPA,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the out-going Administration
on many fronts, but all of these suits were brought to protect
State and local interests from overzealous and activist
executive agencies. Over the last 8 years the Obama
administration has advanced a radical environmental agenda, has
exhibited a deep distrust of State governments and private
landowners, and has worked to obstruct the fossil fuel industry
and agriculture producers, the most ardent protectors of the
environment. These are industries and interests that Oklahoma
relies on. And far from being an enemy of the environment,
Scott has proven himself as the expert at balancing economic
growth with environmental stewardship.
It is my belief that Attorney General Pruitt will return
the Environmental Protection Agency to its proper role as a
steward of the environment, acting within the bounds prescribed
by Congress and the Constitution.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to enter
into the record an op-ed in support of Attorney General Pruitt
from Scott Thompson, executive director of the Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Lankford.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES LANKFORD,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Lankford. Chairman Barrasso, thank you. Ranking
Member Carper, members of the Committee, thank you for allowing
me to be able to be here today, introduce my fellow Oklahoman,
and for Senator Inhofe and I to both be able to stand with him
and to be able to introduce who we believe will be a tremendous
nominee as Administrator for the Environmental Protection
Agency.
It is an honor to speak in support of Attorney General
Pruitt today. Over the past 6 years Scott has been a leader in
the State of Oklahoma, strongly committed to enforcing the law
and adhering to the Constitution. He is a statesman. He is a
dedicated public servant. As Administrator of the EPA I would
fully expect Scott to lead the Agency to follow every
environmental law and to partner with States, local
authorities, and tribes to do what is best for our present and
for our future.
As Attorney General of Oklahoma he stood shoulder to
shoulder with more than half of the States to ensure the
Federal Government operates within the bounds of the statute
and the Constitution. He has argued consistently that many
regulations that the EPA promulgates are in fact the
responsibilities of State governments first.
In an environment where Chevron deference is precedent, it
is critical that the leader of an agency that has such wide
latitude to extract costs from the economy also respects the
importance of our Federalist foundation and the pocketbooks of
hardworking families.
In previous congressional testimony, Scott has emphasized
the importance of laws like the Clean Air Act, stressing that
the intention was for States and the EPA to work together under
a model of cooperative federalism that protects the environment
while considering economic costs.
As Attorney General Scott has been an ardent defender of
the rule of law for Oklahomans. In 2012 he sued British
Petroleum, arguing that they knowingly double-dipped through
the collection of funds through a clean up fund despite having
insurance coverage for environmental clean up. He did not
hesitate to stand up for his constituents and for his State.
Mike Turpen is the former Attorney General of the State of
Oklahoma and the former Chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic
Party. He spoke out in mid-December, when Scott was first
announced. Let me just read a short portion of his very long
statement in support of Scott Pruitt.
Former Attorney General Mike Turpen and our former
Democratic Party Chairman said, ``Oklahoma Attorney Scott
Pruitt is a good choice to head up the Environmental Protection
Agency. I am convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect our
natural habitats, reserves, and resources. His vision for a
proper relationship between protection and prosperity makes him
superbly qualified to serve as our next EPA Administrator.''
Scott is an active member and a deacon at his church, First
Baptist Church Broken Arrow, a congregation of almost 2,000
people. He is incredibly strong in his faith, and he strives to
walk in integrity. Scott is a serious baseball fan, as well. If
you run out of environmental or legal questions today, which I
doubt you will, but if you run out, why don't you ask him a
couple questions about baseball strategy and spring training,
which starts in just a few weeks.
I have to tell you Scott is a friend. I have prayed with
Scott. I have seen Scott struggle with hard decisions that
affect our State's future. I have seen Scott listen to people
to try to learn all sides of an issue. And I have seen Scott
take difficult stands on matters of law. I think he will be an
excellent Administrator for the EPA, and I think he will do
very well today in getting a chance to bring you the confidence
that he will work hard for our Nation's present and for the
future.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lankford follows:]
Statement of Hon. James Lankford,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, members of the
Committee, thank you for graciously allowing Senator Inhofe and
me the opportunity to join you this morning to introduce our
fellow Oklahoman, Scott Pruitt, as nominee to be the next EPA
Administrator.
It is an honor to speak in support of Attorney General
Pruitt today. Over the past 6 years Scott has been a leader in
the State of Oklahoma strongly committed to enforcing the law
and adhering to the Constitution. He is a statesman and
dedicated public servant.
As the Administrator of the EPA, I would fully expect Scott
to lead the Agency to follow every environmental law and to
partner with States, local authorities, and tribes to do what
is best for our present and our future.
As Attorney General of Oklahoma, he's stood shoulder to
shoulder with more than half the States to ensure that the
Federal Government operates within the bounds of statute and
the Constitution. He has argued consistently that many
regulations the EPA promulgates are in fact the responsibility
of State government.
In an environment where Chevron deference is precedent it
is critical that the leader of an agency that has such wide
latitude to extract costs from the economy respects the
importance of our federalist foundation and the pocketbooks of
hardworking families.
In previous congressional testimony he has the stressed the
importance of laws like the Clean Air Act, stressing that the
intention was for States and the EPA to work together under a
model of cooperative federalism that protects the environment,
while considering economic costs. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Testimony before the House Oversight Subcommittee on
Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and
Procurement Reform, June 28, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Attorney General, Pruitt has been an ardent defender of
the rule of law for Oklahomans. In 2012 he sued BP alleging
they ``knowingly double-dipped'' through the collection of
funds through a cleanup fund despite having insurance coverage
for environmental clean up. He did not hesitate to stand up for
his constituents and his State.
Mike Turpen, former Attorney General of the State of
Oklahoma and the former chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic
Party, spoke out in mid-December when Scott was first
announced. Let me read just a short portion of his long
statement--he stated: ``Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt
is a good choice to head up the Environmental Protection
Agency. I am convinced Scott Pruitt will work to protect our
natural habitats, reserves, and resources. His vision for a
proper relationship between protection and prosperity makes him
superbly qualified to serve as our next EPA Administrator.''
Scott is an active member and Deacon at his church--First
Baptist Broken Arrow--a congregation of almost 2,000. He is
incredibly strong in his faith and strives to walk with
integrity.
Scott is a serious baseball fan. If you run out of
environmental or legal questions today, which I doubt you will,
ask him about baseball strategy and spring training, which
starts in only a few weeks.
Scott is a friend. I have prayed with Scott, seen Scott
struggle with hard decisions that affect our State's future,
seen Scott listen to people to learn all sides of an issue, and
I have seen Scott take difficult stands on matters of law. I
think he will be an excellent EPA Administrator.
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so very much, Senator
Lankford and Senator Inhofe.
Senator Lankford, you are welcome to stay, but you can't
stay in that seat.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lankford. You got it.
Senator Barrasso. Now I would like to welcome Attorney
General Pruitt to the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee.
Welcome. I invite you to first introduce your family and
then proceed with your statement. Congratulations, and welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT PRUITT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
OKLAHOMA, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Pruitt. Good morning, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member
Carper, members of the Committee. It is an honor and a
privilege to be before you today to be considered for the
position of EPA Administrator.
I first want to say thank you to Senators Inhofe and
Lankford for their opening comments. Senator Inhofe has been a
mentor and a friend to me many, many years, and he spent a lot
of time with me through this process, introducing me to many of
you, and I really appreciate his guidance and his help.
Senator Lankford was a friend well before he entered
Congress, and he is already serving Oklahoma and this country
with great distinction.
Mr. Chairman, you indicated to introduce my family. I am
blessed today to have my family in attendance with me. My wife,
Marlyn, of 27 years, is in attendance, along with my children,
McKenna and Cade. There is a little change going on in their
life as well. McKenna is actually graduating from Oklahoma
University this spring and Senator Whitehouse's alma mater of
the University of Virginia Law School. And my son is going to
be graduating high school and heading to Oklahoma University,
following in his sister's footsteps, to be a Boomer Sooner.
So there is lots of change going on in their lives, lots of
change going on in my family's life, and lots of change going
on in the country. And I think the people of this country are
really hungry for some change.
And with change comes an opportunity for growth, an
opportunity to assess how we can reprioritize as a Nation. And
when I ponder leading the EPA I get excited about the great
work to be done on behalf of our Nation and being a good
steward of the natural resources we have as a Nation. What
could be more important than protecting our Nation's waters,
improving our air, and managing the land that we have been
blessed with as a Nation, all the while protecting the health
and welfare of our people?
So, if confirmed, I would lead the EPA with the following
principles in mind.
First, we must reject as a Nation the false paradigm that
if you are pro-energy, you are anti-environment, and if you are
pro-environment, you are anti-energy. I utterly reject that
narrative. In this Nation we can grow our economy, harvest the
resources God has blessed us with, while also being good
stewards of the air, land, and water by which we have been
favored. It is not an either-or proposition.
Next, we should celebrate the great progress that we have
made as a Nation since the inception of the EPA and the laws
that have been passed by this body, but recognize that we have
much work to do.
Third, rule of law matters. Process matters. It inspires
confidence in those that are regulated. The law is static, not
transient. Regulators are supposed to make things regular, to
fairly and equitably enforce the rules and not pick winners and
losers. A regulator should not be for or against any sector of
our economy. Instead, a regulator ought to follow law in
setting up the rules so that those who are regulated can plan,
allocate resources to meet the standards versus operating in a
state of uncertainty and duress.
Fourth, federalism matters. It matters because Congress
says so. And because we need to achieve good outcomes as a
Nation for air and water quality, we need the partnership of
the States to achieve that. It is our State regulators who
oftentimes best understand the local needs and the uniqueness
of our environmental challenges. Plus, our State regulators
possess the resources and expertise to enforce our
environmental laws.
Fifth, public participation is key. We need to hear all
voices as we make decisions on behalf of our country with
respect to environmental laws.
Two final things personally. I seek to be a good listener,
to listen and to lead. You can't do one without the other.
Listen to those career staff----
[Interruption from audience.]
Mr. Pruitt. Listen to those career staff at the EPA, as I
have done as Attorney General of Oklahoma, and listen to you
here in Congress with respect to the needs of your respective
States, and listen to the voice of all Americans as we seek to
carry out our duties under the law.
Last--and this is very important--I seek to serve with
civility. Oftentimes as policymakers you deal with very
contentious issues; I have as Attorney General of Oklahoma as
well. We deal with weighty issues, and there is passion on both
sides of issues. But we should not succumb to personalizing
matters. We should encourage open and civil discourse. One such
issue where civil discourse is absent involves climate change.
Let me say to you science tells us that the climate is
changing, and that human activity in some manner impacts that
change. The ability to measure with precision the degree and
extent of that impact and what to do about it are subject to
continuing debate and dialogue, and well it should be.
So with these principles in mind I seek to answer your
questions today, and I am honored to be here today to be
considered for the position of EPA Administrator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruitt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much. Welcome to
your family, and thank you and congratulations again.
Attorney General Pruitt, you have answered the Committee
questionnaire. The United States Office of Government Ethics
has stated that you are ``in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interest.''
Throughout this hearing, and with the questions for the
record, our Committee members will have an opportunity to learn
more about your commitment to public service and our Nation. I
would ask that throughout this hearing you please respond to
the questions for the record.
With that said, I have to ask the following questions that
we ask of all nominees on behalf of the Committee.
Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee
or designated members of this Committee, and other appropriate
committees of the Congress, and provide information subject to
appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to
your responsibilities?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
information are provided to this Committee and its staff, and
other appropriate committees, in a timely manner?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Do you know of any matters which you may
or may not have disclosed that might place you in any conflict
of interest if you are confirmed?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Just a couple quick questions before we go back and forth.
I would just ask if you could just please describe your
environmental philosophy, what you would do to protect our
environment.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Mr. Chairman, as I indicated in my
opening statement, I believe that the role of a regulator--and
this may not sound too exciting--but is to make things regular.
And I think one of the difficult challenges we see with
individuals across the country is the inability to predict or
know what is expected of them as far as their obligations under
our environmental laws. And I really believe, Mr. Chairman,
that if confirmed as EPA Administrator, this public
participation, cooperative federalism, rule of law being the
focus of how we do business at the EPA, is center to restoring
confidence and certainty in those that are regulated.
Clearly, the mission of the EPA, as I indicated in my
opening statement, to protect our natural resources, protecting
our water quality, improving our air, helping protect the
health and welfare of our citizens, is key to the leadership of
the EPA, and where enforcement is necessary, vigorous
enforcement. I have done that as Attorney General in Oklahoma.
I have taken very constructive steps against those that have
violated the law, but we have done so, I think, in a very
decisive and meaningful way.
So, Mr. Chairman, with that in mind.
Senator Barrasso. I am going to ask one other question,
then I am going to reserve the balance of my time for some
interjection and questioning throughout.
There are still a number of environmental problems that I
see in the country and in my State. Cold war legacy pollution
is a serious problem, where chemical compounds are left deep in
the soil from our military activity decades ago. Often there
are not the tools yet available to adequately address this
pollution. If confirmed, would you advocate increasing the
EPA's focus on innovative technological solutions to address
these and other environmental problems?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman, and this Congress, this past
Congress, as you indicated in your statement and as Senator
Inhofe recognized, with the changes to the TSCA law, there are
priorities this year, new authority actually that has been
given to the EPA Administrator to order testing on certain
chemicals. As I have spent time with some of the members on
this Committee--Senator Gillibrand, as an example, mentioned
PFOA as a concern with respect to the Safe Drinking Water Act,
along with TSCA. So, yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe that there
are priorities that are key to improving our environment, from
CERCLA to TSCA, across air quality, with non-attainment to
attainment, and would seek to focus and prioritize those
efforts.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Mr. Pruitt, we don't often have the kind of
disruptions in this room and in this building that we are
witnessing here today. This is extraordinary. Not
unprecedented, but extraordinary. And people might ask, well,
why are folks so concerned. Well, I will tell you why they are
so concerned. And you don't have to go back to March 3rd up in
Detroit, Michigan, where President-elect--then Candidate Trump,
Donald Trump said these words, ``We're going to get rid of EPA
in almost every form. We are going to have little tidbits left,
but we are going to take a tremendous amount out.'' That is
what he said during the Republican primary.
And what did he say after the election? Well, November
10th, Fox News with Chris Wallace, he said, ``Environmental
Protection, what they do is a disgrace. Every week they come
out with new regulations.'' Chris Wallace asked him, ``Well,
who is going to protect the environment?'' He responded by
saying, ``We'll be fine with the environment.'' We'll be fine
with the environment.
Well, we are concerned that we won't be fine with the
environment. Sometimes words do matter. And one of the concerns
that I have is he is the President; you would be his nominee,
you would be his EPA Administrator. All the things that he said
in the campaign, do they just go away? In you he has put
somebody in place who has actually defunded or led to the
defunding of the Environmental Protection Unit within your own
agency. And yet you have joined in a dozen or more lawsuits
over the last 6 years, ever since you have been Attorney
General, going after the EPA. That is why I have the kind of
concern that you are witnessing here today; not just on that
side of the dais, but on this side as well.
You just took an oath, you raised your hand and took an
oath to answer the questions that our Chairman asked of you,
and one of them was a question dealing with your willingness to
respond to reasonable questions that are asked of you. One of
the things I asked of you--I submitted a letter that I think
you received shortly after Christmas, maybe December 28th,
close of business, and in it I asked a lot of questions. I
asked you to try to respond by January 9th. You didn't respond
to one of them by January 9th, not even one. Today's hearing, I
just asked my staff have you responded to any of those
questions in writing that I asked almost 3 weeks ago, and to my
knowledge no response has yet been received. That is why we
have a concern. That is why we have a concern.
Mercury.
Mr. Pruitt. I am sorry?
Senator Carper. I am going to start off by talking about
mercury. In 2011 the EPA required dirty coal power plants to
clean up mercury and air toxic emissions by issuing the Mercury
and Air Toxic Standards Rule. This rule will reduce the
mercury, a neurotoxin that contaminates our streams and our
oceans, pollutes our fish, and harms our children's health.
As Attorney General, I believe you have been part of at
least 14 legal cases against the EPA and at least 3 of these
cases against the EPA's rules, to reduce mercury emissions from
power plants. Is that correct? Just yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, we have been involved in litigation
around the MATS Rule.
Senator Carper. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, yes, we have been a part of
litigation involving the MATS Rule.
Senator Carper. Thank you. It is my understanding that at
least one of these cases against the mercury rule is still
pending. Is that correct? Just yes or no.
Mr. Pruitt. I believe so, Senator, yes.
Senator Carper. Thank you. In the cases against the mercury
rule, you questioned the EPA's determination that mercury
emissions from power plants are harmful to health and should be
regulated. To be clear, have you ever supported a case against
the EPA that claims, and this is a quote, ``human exposure to
methylmercury resulting from coal-fired power plants is
exceedingly small,'' yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is not a yes or no question, if I
may.
Senator Carper. Fair enough. This position seems to
question an EPA decision in 2000 in which the Agency
determined, after almost a decade of study--and this is a quote
from them, ``mercury emissions from power plants pose
significant hazards to public health and must be reduced.''
Would you say the legal cases you have supported in the past
directly challenge this Agency finding, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, the challenges we have had as a
State----
Senator Carper. Yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. Along with the other States----
Senator Carper. Yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Senator. If I may.
Senator Carper. Just hold your fire. Just hold your fire.
Mr. Pruitt. OK.
Senator Carper. The legal position you have taken on
mercury also seems to call in question the 2003 testimony from
then-EPA Assistant Administrator of Air and Radiation, Jeff
Holmstead, under George W. Bush, who sat right where you are
sitting today, and this is what he said: ``EPA is required to
regulate mercury because EPA determined that mercury emissions
from power plants pose an otherwise unaddressed significant
risk to health and the environment and because controls options
to reduce this risk are available.''
This Bush EPA statement on mercury risk seems contrary to
the legal arguments you have supported in the past. Is that
correct, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. I agree with Mr. Holmstead's position that
mercury is something that is very dangerous to the environment
and should be regulated under section 112.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
Are you aware that the last three administrators have
publicly stated that the EPA is required to regulate mercury
from power plants because of the health risk, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe that mercury should be regulated
under section 112.
Senator Carper. Thank you very much.
My time is about to expire. I will just hold it there.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, I don't think you had adequate time to answer some of
the questions that were asked. Is there anything you would like
to add, to elaborate on?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator, thank you. I do want to say to
Senator Carper's concern with respect to the President-elect's
statements throughout the campaign, I believe there is a very
important role for the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact
you and I talked about that in your office. I believe that
there are air quality issues and water quality issues that
cross State lines; that the jurisdiction of the EPA, its
involvement in protecting our air quality and improving our
Nation's waters is extremely important.
And the EPA has served a very valuable role historically.
After all it was Republicans who created the EPA under
executive order in 1970, and this body has passed many pieces
of legislation since the 1970s to focus upon improving our air
and improving our water quality, and we have much to celebrate.
Actually, there are six criteria pollutants under the NAAQS
program since 1980 that are down 63 percent. We have made
progress as a country, but we have work to do, and the EPA has
a very valuable role, in partner with the States, to carry out
those steps to ensure improving our air quality and protecting
our Nation's waters.
So, Senator Carper, I am hopeful that--in response to your
concern about the role of the EPA, I believe it is a very
valuable role, and it is something that we should focus on in
partnering with our States.
With respect to mercury, the litigation that you referred
to, there was no argument that we made from a State perspective
that mercury is not a hazardous air pollutant under section
112. Our argument focused upon the cost-benefit analysis that
the EPA failed to do, and in the Michigan v. EPA case the
Supreme Court actually agreed. So it was more about the
process, again, that the EPA was supposed to go through in
regulating mercury to provide certainty to those in the
marketplace, not a statement with respect to whether mercury
should be regulated or not under section 112.
Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, General. I am glad you brought
up this thing about the Clean Air Act. The amendments from
1990, I was one of the co-sponsors; it has been incredibly
successful. You mentioned that we have reduced those pollutants
by 63 percent, but what you didn't add was that is in spite of
the fact that we had 153 percent increase in our economic
activity. That is a major thing.
In my introduction I mentioned this thing that you did that
no one can figure out how you did it, involved a 100-year
dispute between not just the State of Oklahoma and the city of
Oklahoma City and the Choctaws and the Chickasaws. Do you want
to share with us how you did that? You know, they tried for 100
years, and you came in and did it in less than 100 days.
Mr. Pruitt. Less than 8 months into my administration as
Attorney General, we were sued as a State by the Choctaw and
Chickasaw Nation with respect to water in 17 counties in
southeast Oklahoma. Many of you--if you know anything about
water litigation, it generally takes decades to resolve water
litigation. We were able to go from August 2011 until 2016 and
negotiate an historic water rights agreement with those two
Nations to provide certainty to those that are regulated, to
provide a voice to the tribes with respect to water allocation
and water quality, and the State has maintained its position as
arbiter of how those permits are allocated, as well.
So it was a partnership. It was the way things ought to
work when litigation occurs. Sitting across the table from
individuals and working together to try to solve the problem.
And Senator, we were able to achieve that in record time, and I
am very proud of what we did as a State and as the Chickasaw
and Choctaw Nation together.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, that is good. I think, also, you got
them all in one room, didn't you?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. That works.
You have been criticized by some of the people talking
about some of your environmental record. I would like to be
sure that people are aware of a number of people, I have some
here that I will submit for the record, but a guy named Ed Fite
is the vice president of scenic rivers and water quality of the
GRDA. This is a person who has really been at the forefront of
our scenic rivers program; he praises you, saying, ``I found
that General Pruitt has always done right by our scenic rivers.
He has done everything constructive that he told me that he
would do.''
The same thing comes from the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, Donald van der Vaart. He wrote, ``Pruitt
is committed to clean air and clean water, and to restoring the
EPA to its original mission of enforcing the environmental laws
written by Congress.''
J.D. Strong, head of the Water Resources Board, said,
``Attorney General Pruitt'' and he goes on and praises you.
I would like to know why it is you have become such a hero
of the scenic river people.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, as you know, Oklahoma has
endured many decades of dispute with respect to phosphorus
levels in the scenic Illinois River. In fact, there has been
litigation that has been a part of that dispute for some time.
There was actually a memorandum of understanding that Arkansas
and Oklahoma entered into around 2002, 2003, and that
memorandum expired during my time as Attorney General. There
were many in government at the time that said we should just
wait on the EPA to come in and address the issue, and I chose a
different path. I actually reached out to my Democratic
colleague, Dustin McDaniel, the Attorney General of the State
of Arkansas, and we were able to negotiate an agreement that
had phosphorus levels set at .037 scientifically driven and
enforced on both sides of the border for the first time in
history.
So I think Mr. Fite is actually the head of the Scenic
Illinois Rivers Commission. He has been center on this issue
for a number of years, and I think his good word relates to the
work that we did in my office, working with Dustin McDaniel, to
achieve that good outcome.
Senator Inhofe. I know my time has expired, but Mr.
Chairman, I would like to enter into the record at this point
in the record the statement by the DEQ that I referred to.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection, hearing none.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Pruitt. As we discussed when
you and I met, the oceans off of our Ocean State are warming
due to fossil fuel-driven climate change. It is crashing our
fisheries like lobster and winter flounder, and making earning
a living harder for our fishermen. I see nothing in your career
to give those fishermen any confidence that you will care one
bit for their well being, and not just the well being of the
fossil fuel industry.
In a process that you could replicate in an Oklahoma high
school science lab, excess carbon dioxide from fossil fuel
emissions is turning our seas more acid. Rhode Island shell
fishermen and shell fish growers are concerned. In my colleague
Senator Merkley's State, they have already had oysters spat
wiped out for businesses by acidified waters. I see nothing in
your career that you would care at all about our Rhode Island
shell fishermen.
In Rhode Island we have bad air days, and because of EPA's
work there are fewer and fewer. A bad air day is a day when
people driving into work hear on the radio that ozone from out-
of-State smoke stacks has made the air in Rhode Island
dangerous and that infants and the elderly and people with
breathing difficulties should stay home on an otherwise
beautiful day. Because those smoke stacks are out of State, we
need EPA to protect us, and I see nothing in your record that
would give a mom taking her child to the hospital for an asthma
attack any comfort that you would take the slightest interest
in her.
And your passion for devolving power down to States doesn't
help us because our State regulators can't do anything about
any of those problems; they all come from out-of-State sources.
In this respect we are very like Delaware.
One of the things I would like to ask you about here is the
connection between you and some of these fossil fuel companies.
These are some of the companies that have supported you. These
are some of the political organizations that you have raised
money for. You have raised money for them for Pruitt for
Attorney General, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir. I had a campaign committee for that,
yes.
Senator Whitehouse. And Devon Energy, Koch Industries,
ExxonMobil have all maxed out to that account.
Mr. Pruitt. I am not aware if they maxed out or not,
Senator, but I am sure they have given to that committee.
Senator Whitehouse. Oklahoma Strong PAC is your leadership
pack?
Mr. Pruitt. It was, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. It was? And similarly, they gave money;
they maxed out to that organization as well, which you
controlled?
Mr. Pruitt. I am unsure about that, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. But they contributed to it.
Mr. Pruitt. I am even unsure about that as well. I haven't
looked at that.
Senator Whitehouse. You closed your super PAC, Liberty 2.0,
but that took fossil fuel contributions as well, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. That particular entity has been closed, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Now, you helped to raise money for the
Republican Attorney Generals Association. While you were a
member of its executive committee, they received $530,000 from
Koch Industries, $350,000 from Murray Energy, $160,000 from
ExxonMobil, and $125,000 from Devon Energy, the company whose
letter you transposed onto your letterhead and sent as an
Oklahoma Attorney General document.
Did you solicit, in your role at the Republican Attorney
Generals Association, any of that funding?
Mr. Pruitt. I am unable to confirm if they gave those
numbers, Senator, those amounts. There were several----
Senator Whitehouse. Did you solicit funding from them in
your role at the Republican Attorney Generals Association?
Mr. Pruitt. I attended fundraising events as an Attorney
General, along with other attorneys general with respect to the
RAGA.
Senator Whitehouse. And did you solicit? Did you ask them
for money for RAGA?
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated, I attended fundraising events
with respect to this.
Senator Whitehouse. But that is different. Attending
fundraising is one thing. Asking them is my question. Did you
ask them for money?
Mr. Pruitt. Specifically, you would have to ask about
certain entities. I don't know. You have an entire list.
Senator Whitehouse. Those are the entities: Koch
Industries, Murray Energy, ExxonMobil, Devon Energy.
Mr. Pruitt. I did not ask of Koch or--what were the other
ones?
Senator Whitehouse. Murray Energy, ExxonMobil, Devon
Energy.
Mr. Pruitt. I have not asked them for money on behalf of
RAGA.
Senator Whitehouse. You said to the Chairman that there is
nothing that might place you in a conflict of interest that you
have not disclosed. Yet, you founded the Rule of Law Defense
Fund, which is a dark money operation that supports the
Republican Attorney Generals Association, and you have not
disclosed any of your solicitations for that entity nor have
you disclosed what money was raised pursuant to those
solicitations. This is an organization that appears to have a
million dollar a year budget, so very substantial funds have
been solicited. I believe you were its chairman. Will you
disclose your role in soliciting money and in receiving money
for the Rule of Law Defense Fund pursuant to your
solicitations?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, a point of clarification. I actually
did not start nor initiate the Rule of Law Defense Fund. That
is something I did not do.
Senator Whitehouse. You led it?
Mr. Pruitt. I have been an officer of that organization for
2016.
Senator Whitehouse. OK, an officer of it.
Mr. Pruitt. There is an executive staff, fundraisers that
actually carry out the functions of that organization. There
are many attorneys general that serve on that board. It is not
a decision of one; it is a decision of those that are empowered
to make those decisions.
Senator Whitehouse. But you haven't told us anything about
that. You haven't told us----
Mr. Pruitt. I have no access----
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Who you asked money from--
--
Mr. Pruitt. That is a file that----
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. You haven't told us what
they gave, if you asked them. It is a complete black hole into
which at least a million dollars goes, and based on your record
of fundraising it appears that a great deal of your fundraising
comes from these organizations who are in the energy sector and
devoted to fighting climate change.
Mr. Pruitt. Some of whom I have actually sued, as well,
Senator. But with respect to the Rule of Law----
Senator Whitehouse. Name one you have sued up there.
Mr. Pruitt. ExxonMobil.
Senator Whitehouse. Really?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. We will pursue
this in further questions.
Mr. Pruitt. We are involved in, as I indicated, I think, in
your office, we are involved in, and Senator Inhofe mentioned
it in his comments, a situation in Oklahoma where multiple oil
and gas companies, ConocoPhillips and others, have defrauded
the State in clean up with respect to spills that have
occurred, and ExxonMobil----
Senator Whitehouse. That is a qui tam fraud case; it has
nothing to do with the environment.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator,----
Senator Barrasso. I thought you were going to resolve that
for the second round.
Senator Whitehouse. I am sorry, he was coming back to me,
so I was responding.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Before heading to Senator Capito, there are two articles I
will be introducing into the record. One from the Wall Street
Journal in September, headlined ``Hillary Clinton Raises More
Than Donald Trump from Oil Industry.'' The second article that
I will be introducing for the record is from Politico from
December 27th, by Elana Schor, who quotes America Rising
Executive Director Brian Rogers: ``This is a partisan fishing
expedition by six liberal Democrats who, combined, have taken
more than $1.2 million from far left environmentalist groups
dead set against any reforms to an out-of-control EPA.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
.Senator Barrasso. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for being here, for
your willingness to throw your hat in the ring to serve. I
would like to quote the Ranking Member when he says it is hard
work, because it is. The EPA is hard work.
But one of the things you said really struck me, and I
believe that the rule of law does matter, and I am heartened by
your passion for that.
The regulatory overreach of the EPA has contributed to
economic devastation in my State of West Virginia and my
region. Data from the Mine Safety and Health Administration
shows that 60,000 coal jobs have been lost between 2011 and
2016. Thousands of these were in West Virginia. We are in a
desperate situation in our State right now because of this.
We had a field hearing in Beckley, West Virginia, where our
WVU economist, John Deskins, said that the coal industry
downturn had resulted in six of our southern West Virginia
counties being in a great depression.
For the past 8 years the EPA has given no indication at all
that it cares about the economic impact of its policies, even
though Congress has said very clearly in the Clean Air Act and
other environmental statutes that we expect jobs and economic
factors to be taken into account. That is part of the law. In
October a Federal court held that the EPA had failed to
evaluate the job impacts of the EPA Clean Air Act as required
by 321(a) of that Act and ordered the EPA to submit a schedule
for conducting the required jobs analysis.
Incredibly, the EPA told the court it would take 2 years--
this was just in the last several weeks--it would take 2 years
just to come up with a plan on how to do the analysis, which,
in my view, if that is part of the law that EPA is supposed to
be following, they should already have the protocols set up to
do an effective and accurate job analysis.
So the court responded like this: ``This response is wholly
inefficient, unacceptable, and unnecessary. It evidences the
continued hostility on the part of the EPA to the acceptance of
the mission established by Congress.''
So I would like to ask you to commit to me to ensure that
the EPA will follow the law it is charged with implementing and
do those ongoing evaluation of job losses and economic shifts
due to the requirements of the Act as required by the law.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you indicated, I really believe
that it is important that rule of law is adhered to because it
inspires confidence in those that are regulated. I think
oftentimes those that are regulated don't know what is expected
of them. They look at a statute, they see the requirements of
the statute, and then those that are regulating act in a way
that is not consistent with that framework, so they don't know
what is expected of them, and that causes uncertainty and I
think paralysis to a certain degree. So rule of law is
something that we should take seriously. It has been at the
heart of the litigation that we have initiated as a State.
A lot of times these cases--as we were talking earlier with
Senator Carper--there is a policy or a political kind of
attention that is drawn to it but really is about process and
rule of law and making sure that the framework that this body,
Congress, has established is respected and enforced. So I
appreciate your comments.
Senator Capito. Well, in looking for the balance, we need
to have at least a correct analysis of what the economic
implications are of regulations.
It is so important, critically important that we enforce
our environmental laws and to keep our air clean and get it
cleaner and protect our waters.
In January 2014 a storage tank in Charleston, West
Virginia, was corrupted and went into the river. It was right
by the water flow of the major water source in my community.
Three hundred thousand people had to do without water for
several weeks. It caused a lot of angst economically to small
businesses. Imagine a restaurant not being able to use water or
you can't wash your clothes. You couldn't do anything with the
water.
But also, and I share this concern, concern about the
health and the long-range implications of what has happened.
Several people, multiple individuals and Freedom Industries
have pled guilty to environmental crimes in Federal court,
which I am very pleased about.
So let's talk about TSCA, because in TSCA I was able to
support a provision that would say that if you are storing in
close proximity to drinking water, you have to take that into
consideration when you are reviewing potentially hazardous
chemicals.
Can we count on you to work with this Committee to make
sure that this bipartisan TSCA reform bill is fully
implemented, and efficiently and fully?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, Senator. In fact, I would commend
the work of this Committee, with Senator Inhofe's leadership,
in passing that update to the TSCA legislation. For the first
time in history, as you know, the EPA has the ability to order
testing to address chemicals that are going to be entered into
the stream of commerce, and that is a very big substantive
change that exists. There are many deadlines----
Senator Capito. And I would also add that in TSCA--excuse
me just a minute because I am running out of time. In TSCA we
actually expanded the EPA's reach. So when you are asked if you
are wanting to get rid of the EPA or it doesn't have a value, I
voted to expand that reach of EPA to make sure that I have
clean water and that if a spill happens in a community around
this country, what has happened in Flint, Michigan, doesn't
have the far reaching implications that it does.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for your
willingness to serve our country.
I want to talk about the Chesapeake Bay Program. We talked
about that in my office. I explained to you, and I will do it
very quickly, that this is a program that was developed at the
State level with the States that are in the watershed,
including Delaware, with my colleague, Senator Carper. It is a
State that the locals have determined how it is best to reach
their pollution targets in order to help preserve the
Chesapeake Bay. It is the largest estuary in the northern
hemisphere. It is critically important; it is complicated. It
doesn't flush itself, as many bodies of water do; it has a
reduction of oyster crops. There are so many problems. All the
stakeholders have gotten together; they worked out a plan. The
Federal Government is part of that plan. It is enforced through
the TMDL program, and it has been agreed to by the local
governments.
It was challenged, the TMDLs, including you joined that
lawsuit. The Supreme Court refused to overturn the Court of
Appeals supporting the use of the TMDLs.
If you are confirmed, will you support the Federal role in
the Chesapeake Bay Program as envisioned by the partners and
stakeholders, enforcing the TMDLs, if necessary?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. And as I indicated in your
office, the time that we had together, I really commend the six
States that joined together to address the Chesapeake Bay and
to try to set levels for both point source and non-point source
type of discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. There were some
concerns about the precedent, the role that EPA was playing
initially, but through that litigation the EPA has acknowledged
that their role is more informational. And there was concern in
Oklahoma about the Mississippi River Basin and the precedent
that was set in that matter, and that is what spawned our
litigation.
But I really want to emphasize to you that process
represents what should occur, for States to join together and
enter into an agreement to address water quality issues and
then involve the EPA to serve the role it is supposed to serve
is something that should be commended and celebrated. And as it
relates to enforcing that TMDL, I can commit to you that in
fact I will do so.
Senator Cardin. Part of the Federal Government's
partnership is to provide resources. There are several programs
that fund initiatives within the Chesapeake Bay Watershed;
probably the largest is the State Revolving Funds dealing with
wastewater. Will you support the Federal Government's
partnership through funding these programs that are critically
important to make the advancements in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. I believe that the grant making
role of the EPA, as we talked about in your office, is very
important to States across this country, whether it is the
revolving funds or the WIFIA portions of our statutes. But
grant making, in general, is very important, and I will commit
to you in that regard that I would do so with respect to the
Chesapeake Bay.
Senator Cardin. I want to continue on clean water for one
moment. We have had significant problems with safe drinking
water and clean water. Let me ask you a preliminary question.
Do you believe there is any safe level of lead that can be
taken into the human body, particularly a young person?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is something I have not reviewed
nor know about. I would be very concerned about any level of
lead going into the drinking water or obviously human
consumption, but I have not looked at the scientific research
on that.
Senator Cardin. The Clean Water Act provides for Federal
guidance as to acceptable clean water. It is enforced by the
States. So my question to you in regards to clean water is what
steps will you take to make sure that our children are safe. We
saw in Flint, Michigan, a tragedy occur. Where do you think the
Federal Government needs to strengthen its regulatory roles to
make sure that our children are safe from lead?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, I think with Flint, Michigan, it is an
example of delay in response by the EPA. There should have been
more done on corrosion control programs with the Flint,
Michigan, system. As you know, under the Clean Water Act and
the Safe Drinking Water Act if there is an emergency situation
the EPA can enter an emergency order to address those kinds of
concerns. I think there should have been a more fast response,
a more rapid response to Flint, Michigan.
I think with respect to water quality it is infrastructure.
Water infrastructure is important. And as you indicated the
States play a very vital role in that process, and there needs
to be more cooperation between the EPA and the States to ensure
water quality is protected.
Senator Cardin. Just so I understand, you have participated
in several lawsuits against the EPA's involvement, saying that
the locals should have the responsibility. If you are
confirmed, will you support Federal enforcement, particularly
in multi-State issues, where the only way we can get
enforcement is at the Federal level?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe that is a vital role of the EPA. As I
indicated in your office, with air quality, water quality,
issues that cross State line, there is an enforcement mechanism
that is important and would seek to do so if confirmed as EPA
Administrator.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for being here today, but also
for accepting the nomination. It is a service and a sacrifice
not just for you, but for your family, as well, to step forward
to serve this country. So thank you, sir, for being willing to
do that.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Fischer. For your testimony, I do thank you, and I
would like to, first of all, let you know that Nebraskans have
been really affected by the EPA in many instances, and I will
give you some examples of that.
Nebraska's public power utilities are grappling with how
they could ever comply with the EPA's carbon emission reduction
mandates. The city of Omaha is struggling with the Agency's
expensive CSO mandate and drinking water affordability.
Nebraska farmers are waiting on new crop technology products
that are stuck in a broken regulatory process. Our biofuel
investors and producers are desperate for certainty under the
RFS. Homebuilders, transportation stakeholders, and local
county officials are concerned about the jurisdictional
expansion to control our State's water resources. Communities
and small business owners fear that the EPA's ozone mandate
will stunt potential economic development and growth in our
State. As a result of the activist role the EPA has played for
the past 8 years, families are concerned about the futures of
their livelihood.
We all want clean air, and we all want clean water. That is
one point that I know each and every person here agrees on. But
with the EPA's tremendous impact on Americans' lives each and
every day, it is important that the Agency be open,
transparent, and answerable for its actions. Given these
concerns, along with the many others that have been and will
continue to be discussed today, what steps will you take as the
EPA Administrator to provide relief for American families that
are faced truly with an onslaught of EPA rules?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, you mentioned open, transparent
rulemaking. There are concerns that have been expressed
recently with respect to regulation through litigation, where
groups initiate litigation against the EPA and the U.S.
Government, and set environmental policy through something
called a sue and settle process. I think this body, as well as
the U.S. House, has looked at those kinds of issues. And when
we talk about open transparency, there is a reason why the
Administrative Procedures Act exists. It is intended to provide
notice to those that are going to be impacted with rules to
give them the opportunity to offer comment and to inform the
regulators on the impact of those rules. And then it is the
obligation of the regulator to take those things into
consideration in finalizing rules; otherwise they act in an
arbitrary and capricious way.
So it is very important that that process be adhered to, to
give voice to all Americans in balancing the environmental
objectives we have, but also the economic harm that results.
And the Supreme Court has spoken about that rather consistently
of late, and I would seek to lead the EPA in such a way to
ensure that openness and transparency.
Senator Fischer. You know, a couple weeks ago I held a very
good conversation about our shared vision for the EPA, to bring
common sense and accountability back to that Agency, and I
think that is going to go a long way in restoring confidence in
the Agency by the American people.
One issue we did discuss was the Renewable Fuel Standard
and its importance to my home State of Nebraska. We are the
largest ethanol producer west of the Missouri River. Our
neighbors to the east, Senator Ernst's home State, they do lead
the Nation in ethanol production. So honoring the
congressionally mandated timelines and the volume requirements
that are critical from an investment point of view and also
from a planning perspective, I think that this is especially
relevant, and especially during the current farm crisis that we
are seeing and the negative impact on people in agriculture all
across this Nation.
In our meeting you did express your commitment to me to
honor the law and you echoed President-elect Trump's support
for the statute itself and a strong RVO. For the record, can
you please once again express your commitment to uphold the
congressional intent of the RFS?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator, and you said it well, to honor
the intent and the expression of the Renewable Fuel Standard
statute is very, very important. It is not the job of the
Administrator of the EPA to do anything other than administer
the program according to the intent of Congress, and I commit
to you to do so.
Senator Fischer. And you also----
Mr. Pruitt. And I would say this. The waivers that
routinely are offered by the Administrator, recently another
waiver was offered, it should be used judiciously. There is a
reason why Congress put in that statute those statutory
objectives. The market has changed since 2005, and the waiver
authority that has been provided by this body is important, but
that waiver authority should be used judiciously, and the Act
should be complied with and enforced consistent with the will
of Congress.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. And I would ask that you
also tell us publicly what you told us, that you will honor the
timelines on the volume levels that are mandated by Congress.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Over a number of years information started pouring into EPA
that the estimate of the amount of fugitive methane escaping in
gas and oil drilling had been deeply underestimated. In 2011
the EPA put out its best estimates based on the information
that was being presented. And this is relevant because methane
is a global warming gas, more potent than CO2.
Gas companies didn't like this because, well, it presented
a vision of natural gas being more damaging environmentally
than folks had previously understood. Devon Energy is one of
the groups that sought to cast doubt on this scientific
information, and they came to you to be their spokesperson, and
they asked will you be our mouthpiece in casting doubt and send
a letter we have drafted to the EPA, and you sent that letter.
And I just want to ask, first, are you aware that methane
is approximately 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a
global warming gas?
Mr. Pruitt. I am, Senator.
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt. I think the impact on human----
Senator Merkley. That is the answer. Yes. Thank you. It is
a yes or no question.
And on a 1 to 10 scale, how concerned are you about the
impacts of fugitive methane in driving global warming?
Mr. Pruitt. Methane, as you indicated----
Senator Merkley. One to 10 scale. Highly, 10, very
concerned, or 1, not so concerned?
Mr. Pruitt. The quantities of methane in the atmosphere
compared to CO2 is less, but it is far more potent,
and it is----
Senator Merkley. Are you concerned? I am asking about your
level of concern.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Highly concerned?
Mr. Pruitt. I am concerned.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. Do you acknowledge sending this
letter to the EPA in October 2011?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, if that is a letter that is on my
letterhead that was sent to the EPA, yes, with respect to the
issue.
Senator Merkley. Do you acknowledge that 97 percent of the
words in that letter came directly from Devon Energy?
Mr. Pruitt. I have not looked at the percentage, Senator.
Senator Merkley. The statement that has been analyzed many
times is that all of the 1,016 words, except for 37 words, were
written directly by Devon Energy.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that was a step that was taken as
Attorney General representing the interest of our State. Over
25 percent of----
Senator Merkley. I didn't ask that question. I was just
asking if you copied the letter virtually word for word. You
have acknowledged that, yes, it is in the record. People can
count it. It is correct.
All right, so a public office is about serving the public.
There is a public concern over the impact of methane on global
warming. There is scientific research showing that it is far
more devastating than anticipated and far more is leaking. But
you used your office as a direct extension of an oil company
rather than a direct extension of the interests of the public
health of the people of Oklahoma. Do you acknowledge that you
presented a private oil company's position rather than a
position developed by the people of Oklahoma?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, with respect, I disagree. The efforts
that I took as Attorney General were representing the interests
of the State of Oklahoma.
Senator Merkley. Earlier you said you----
Mr. Pruitt. And there was a concern about----
Senator Merkley. No, no, excuse me. I am asking the
questions. You said earlier you listen to everyone. In drafting
this letter you took an oil company's position and then without
consulting people who had diverse views about the impact, you
sent it off. How can you present that as representing the
people of Oklahoma when you simply only consulted an oil
company to push its own point of view for its private profit?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, there is an obligation the EPA has to
follow processes as established by this body. The cost-benefit
analysis under section 112 is something that they have to
engage in. There was a concern about the overestimated
percentages that the EPA put in the record; it was a record-
based challenge. That was the expression of the letter to the
EPA, and it was representing the interests of an industry in
the State of Oklahoma; not a company, an industry.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. But my question was what other
groups--environmental groups or other groups--did you consult
so that you had that full perspective before representing
simply a for-profit oil company using your official office and
your official letterhead?
Mr. Pruitt. I consulted with other environmental officials
in Oklahoma that regulate that industry and learned from them
with respect to the concerns about the estimates that were
provided by the EPA.
Senator Merkley. Can you provide this Committee with
information showing who you consulted in representing this
letter specifically for Devon Energy? Because the information
that is in the public realm only shows that they simply sent
you a letter, asked you to send it, and you sent it without
questions.
Mr. Pruitt. We have seven or so individuals in our office
that are involved in these kinds of issues, and we will collect
the information they have and provide it to this body pursuant
to the Chairman's direction.
Senator Merkley. Your staff expanded substantially while
you were in charge, to 251 staff members. Why do you need an
outside oil company to draft a letter when you have 250 people
working for you?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I have indicated, that was an
effort that was protecting the State's interest in making sure
that we made the voices of all Oklahomans heard on a very
important industry to our State.
Senator Merkley. You said all heard, but you only sent it
on behalf of a single voice, the oil company.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. I still have some time remaining from my
questioning. Is there anything you would like to add that you
haven't felt you have had a chance in terms of answering fully
some of the areas of the questioning?
Mr. Pruitt. I think, Senator, the clarification that the
letter that was sent to the EPA was not sent on behalf of any
one company. This was not particular to Devon Energy, not
particular to Chesapeake, not particular to other companies in
our State; it was particular to an industry. The State of
Oklahoma has an oil and gas industry that is vibrant to our
State, as you might imagine, just like many of you have
industry in your State. There was concern expressed by that
industry--many folks in that industry--about the overestimating
that occurred with that methane rule. That was the
communication to the EPA. It was a position of the State, not
the position of any one company.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Chairman, thank you very much.
General Pruitt, welcome to the Committee. Thank you for
your public service. I am going to see if I can get through
three areas in the 5 minutes that I have.
First of all, WOTUS, Waters of the United States. Despite
there being an injunction against the enforcement of the WOTUS
rule, I am told that EPA Region 7, the region in which Kansas
is part, those regional inspectors have increased their
inspection of smaller animal feeding operations. Unlike many
States, Kansas has a well established State permit system for
small facilities as well as the delegated authority under the
Clean Water Act. The EPA--rather than cooperating with the
State agency, the EPA is engaged in its own inspections and its
own enforcement on these small facilities, often conflicting
with State permitting and the enforcement process.
In these actions the EPA has claimed jurisdiction over
features like grass waterways, culverts under county roads
unconnected to the feeding operation and not situated in or
near any body of water.
General Pruitt, what would your direction be to the EPA
staff, to Region 7 and others, in regard to their actions
enforcing WOTUS while an injunction is in place?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, as you indicated, and I do want
to acknowledge the same concerns have been expressed by those
individuals in Oklahoma in different groups with respect to the
WOTUS definition that has been offered by the EPA that is
subject to a 31-State challenge that was consolidated there
before the 6th Circuit, and as you indicated there has been a
stay of enforcement against that particular rule. The Supreme
Court actually, last Friday, took up a matter of jurisdiction
on that case, so that adds some complexity to this.
But I think the role of the EPA, prospectively, is to seek
to provide clarity on what the true definition, what the best
definition is with respect to Waters of the United States. As
you know, there is much flexibility and discretion there given
to the EPA in a series of cases that lead up to the Rapanos
decision that haven't provided a tremendous amount of clarity.
The best thing the EPA can do going forward is to reestablish
that clarity so that States and individuals know what is
expected of them in compliance.
Senator Moran. General, thank you. I don't think I need to
remind you, in particular, about the role that States play in
clean water. But I would take a moment to highlight something
that is often, I think, forgotten in the regulatory world of
water, water quality, is the Department of Agriculture, the
Natural Resource Conservation Service, in which landowners are
assisted through the Department of Agriculture in improving
water quality and water quantity in a very partnership oriented
local effort that is significantly different than the
tremendous reach from the EPA in Washington, DC, as compared to
the local efforts by landowners themselves to work with USDA to
solve problems.
Let me move to my second question. It revolves the Flint
Hills. That is a native grassland in our State. The owners of
those grasslands, these are thousands of acres of grass, they
burn the prairie in the early spring for purposes of
regeneration of that grass. It is learned from the Indians that
lightning used to be the method by which that grassland burned.
Less so now with the settlement that has occurred of our
country. And as a result of that annual burning, that is
ecologically desirable, there is times in which a city--even
one of our own, Wichita, for example--is in non-attainment
under the Clean Air Act. And I raise this issue to you in
asking that you work, if you are confirmed, with the State of
Kansas in our local efforts to manage the burning of the
national grasslands in a way that is advantageous to wildlife
habitat, at the same time done in a timely fashion, at
appropriate times, in appropriate amounts, that preserves the
air quality; but again not a heavy handed approach that one-
size solution or a ban fits the circumstance.
Mr. Pruitt. If confirmed, Senator, I look forward to
working with you on that issue.
Senator Moran. I thank you for that.
Finally, I want to highlight a small town in Kansas named
Pretty Prairie, a typical name or a perfect name for a town in
our State. Pretty Prairie, Kansas, has a population of about
700 people. For several decades, because of the high nitrates
in the city's water levels--I didn't say that very well.
Because of high levels of nitrate in the city water system, the
city has provided free bottled water to its citizens. And my
question to you is now the EPA is disallowing that practice and
requiring the city to spend approximately $2.4 million and
raise the rates of our residents of that community by $80 a
month while the community seemingly is satisfied with the
solution of the city providing an alternative to the expense of
a new water treatment plant.
I ask this question, again, as an example of where a rigid
decision, as compared to a community-based decision, seems to
prevail at the EPA and would give you an opportunity to confirm
to me what I hope you would say is that you will work with
communities. You, as an Oklahoman, and me as a Kansan, and many
of the members of this Committee represent lots of communities
in which the population is insufficient to be able to pay for
the costs of water or sewer treatment. We need financial
resources to accomplish that, but we also need common sense
solutions to the problem.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I look forward to working with you on
that issue as well as the other. There was a saying in the
environmental space: national standards, neighborhood
solutions. And I think it is important for the EPA
Administrator, those in Washington, as I said in my opening
statement, to listen and learn from those, from you with
respect to the needs of your community and your State and
collaborate with you and the local officials to achieve good
outcomes.
Senator Moran. I look forward to educating you on behalf of
Kansans.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Moran.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Good morning, Mr. Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt. Good morning, Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. I have a letter that I read that you sent
to the Committee last year, and you said that the Oklahoma
Attorney General--you said, ``I am responsible for protecting
the welfare of Oklahoma citizens.'' I assume that is still
correct, and you believe that.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Booker. And during the past 6 years in pursuit of
that, if you look at the record of the lawsuits you filed
against the EPA, you have joined or filed 14 lawsuits against
the EPA challenging clean air and clean water rules, yes?
Mr. Pruitt. We have been involved in multiple pieces of
litigation, Senator.
Senator Booker. Yes, but I am looking at specifically 14,
and Mr. Chairman, I would like to put those 14 lawsuits into
the record, of where you specifically challenged the EPA on air
quality. And let me just go through some of those.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Thank you, sir.
To reflect your recollection, you filed two lawsuits
challenging the EPA Mercury and Air Toxics Standard; you filed
a lawsuit challenging the EPA's 2015 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards for ozone; you filed four lawsuits
challenging the EPA's Clean Power Plan; you have sued to
challenge the EPA's 111(b) standards for carbon dioxide
emissions from new power plants; and you also sued to challenge
the EPA's Federal implementation plan for Oklahoma under the
Regional Haze Rule.
You are familiar with those, I imagine?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Booker. And you filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, something in New Jersey we are
very concerned with. Are you aware that that rule, which you
lost in that suit, scientists estimate that that alone prevents
400,000 asthma attacks nationally each year? Are you aware of
those estimations?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Your Honor. Yes, Senator. May I offer----
Senator Booker. I appreciate your promotion to judge.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. Let me continue, Mr. Pruitt. I don't have
much time.
Mr. Pruitt. OK.
Senator Booker. So each of these lawsuits that I just went
through and that we analyzed, all of them challenge attempts by
the EPA to reduce air pollution. In all of them except one you
filed those lawsuits joining with polluting companies that were
also suing the EPA. And so, in addition to filing those
lawsuits with some of the polluting companies, or at least one
that has now been specifically mentioned by two of my
colleagues, you used substantial portions of the letters from
those companies, put them on your official Attorney General
letterhead, and what was sort of surprising to me is that when
you have been asked about this in the public, you basically
represented that that is actually called representative
government in my view of the world. Your testimony here says
that you were representing industry; you were representing the
polluters.
So with all of these lawsuits you filed, and with all of
these letters like this one, written to the EPA on behalf of
the industries that are causing the pollution, it seems clear
to me that obviously the fact pattern on representing polluters
is clear, that you worked very hard on behalf of these
industries that have their profits externalized, negative
externalities are their pollution.
So I just have a question for you specifically about the
children of Oklahoma. Do you know how many kids in Oklahoma,
roughly, have asthma?
Mr. Pruitt. I do not, Senator.
Senator Booker. Well, according to data published by the
very non-partisan group, the American Lung Association, more
than 111,000 children in Oklahoma, which is more than 10
percent, more than 1 in 10 of all the kids in Oklahoma, have
asthma. That is one of the highest asthma rates in the entire
United States of America.
Now, this is a crisis; similar data, for where I was mayor,
and I can tell you firsthand the devastating impacts that
asthma has on children and families; affecting their economic
well being, parents who have to watch their children struggle
to breathe, people that have to miss work, rushing their kids
to the hospital. One in 10 kids having a disease, missing
school, is a significant problem.
So if you have been writing letters on behalf of polluting
industries, I want to ask you how many letters did you write to
the EPA about this health crisis? If this is representative
government, did you represent those children? I want to know
what actions you have taken in the past 6 years in your
capacity as protector of the welfare of Oklahoma citizens to
protect the welfare of those 111,000 children. Did you ever let
any of them write letters on your letterhead to the EPA, and
did you even file one lawsuit, one lawsuit on behalf of those
kids to reduce the air pollution in your State and help them to
have a healthy life?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I have actually provided a list of
cases to the Chairman with respect to enforcement steps we have
taken in multiple pieces of environmental litigation. But let
me say to you, with respect to cross-State pollution and some
of the cases you referred to, the State has to have an interest
before it can bring those cases, as you know. You can't just
bring a lawsuit if you don't have standing, if there has not
been some injury to the State of Oklahoma. In each of those
cases----
Senator Booker. My time has expired, but if I could just
say injury, clearly asthma is triggered and caused by air
pollutants. Clearly there is an air pollution problem. And the
fact that you have not brought suits in any of the levels which
you have represented the industries that are causing the
pollution is really problematic when you are going to sit in a
position that is nationally supposed to be affecting this
reality. And asthma, in our country, is the No. 1 reason why
children in America, health reason why children in America miss
school.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
I submit for the record first an article from the Tulsa
World from Scott Thompson. The headline is ``EPA will be in
good hands with Scott Pruitt.'' Scott Thompson is the Executive
Director of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality.
Talks about the excellent work done and ends with a quote:
``EPA will be in good hands with Scott Pruitt.''
I would point out that between 2004 and 2008--and we will
submit this for the record--the most recent employers of Obama
administration senior EPA officials sue the EPA with 12
lawsuits, at least, in the time when George W. Bush was in his
second term, including Lisa Jackson, Assistant Administrator
Cynthia Giles, Gina McCarthy, and Stephen Owens. They were
petitioners and plaintiffs filing suits against the EPA.
And finally, I will submit an editorial from the Tulsa
World. ``Over the past 6 years, Pruitt's legal team has
consistently shown deference to the legal expertise and
professionals at DEQ,'' the Department of Environmental
Quality. This was written by the executive director. More
importantly, he said, ``I cannot recall an instance where they
did not allow us to pursue legal action when deemed
necessary.''
And then, finally, from Mike Turpen, who is the former
Chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party, says, ``The job of
the EPA is the essential mission of guaranteeing clean air and
clean water. Pruitt has never compromised those critical
components of a healthy population with any actions he has
taken.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Attorney General Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. I notice that you didn't have the
opportunity in the time allotted for Senator Booker's question.
Would you care to finish your response with regard to the role
that the States have in their ability to either participate in
a suit and whether or not they have standing? Would you like to
finish your thoughts on that?
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator, as I indicated in your office, when we spent time
together, the enforcement role in the State of Oklahoma is
different than other States. With respect to the Department of
Environmental Quality, the Oklahoma Water Resources Board, we
had multiple agencies, Department of Agriculture, that have
frontline enforcement authority with respect to our
environmental laws.
The role that we play in my office largely is a general
counsel role. We provide guidance and direction to those
agencies. There were many cases we have initiated in
conjunction with them, but mainly those agencies enforce
actions at their level. Many of those agencies have dozens of
attorneys on their staff and a general counsel in their own
right bringing those enforcement actions.
You mentioned several of the cases. From MATS to Cross-
State Air Pollution and the rest. I believe the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule is a very important statute that EPA should
enforce. I believe that if there are downwind States that are
contributing to non-attainment--I am sorry, upwind States that
are contributing to non-attainment in downwind States, that
there should be responsibility for those States. We had that
issue with Texas at times.
So the lawsuit was not questioning the authority of the EPA
to regulate under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule; it was
more that they were trying to assess damages against certain
States that were in excess of their allocated share.
So each of those cases I would ask you to remember I am an
advocate in behalf of the State of Oklahoma. There is a State's
interest that Senator Rounds indicated that has to be in play.
To say that any of those cases is about any one company is just
simply not right. There is no parens patriae standing that I
have as Attorney General to bring a case on behalf of a private
citizen or a company; there has to be a standing, an injury to
the State's interest to bring those cases.
So I would ask you to consider that as we go through those
cases you mentioned earlier.
Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
And thank you, sir, for your response, your complete
response.
Also, as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of
the Environmental Protection Agency, I have had the opportunity
to look at their basis or the way that they make their
decisions known and the logic they use in getting to those
decisions. We had a chance to talk about it in my office the
other day, and one of the items that I brought up was the fact
that we actually had received comments from the Small Business
Administration Office of Advocacy, a copy of which I got.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have those put into the
record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Rounds. And with this, this was a letter that was
sent to the EPA in October 2014 requesting that the EPA
withdraw the proposed Waters of the U.S. Rule, the WOTUS Rule,
and reevaluate the impacts the rule would have on American
small business. Now, this is a Federal agency requesting the
EPA take a second look at a proposed rule.
The EPA refused this request and issued the final rule that
we have today.
What are your thoughts on this? And would you, if you are
approved and become the next Administrator of the EPA, would
you take a second look at whether or not they had a valid
reason for having the Waters of the U.S. Rule considered again?
Mr. Pruitt. I think, Senator, the response of the 6th
Circuit and where we are presently with litigation, there is
definitely a need to address that on a prospective basis.
Historically, as you know, under the Clean Water Act, and even
before the Clean Water was passed, waters of the United States
equaled navigable waters, navigable in fact waters. We know
from a couple of cases that led up to the most recent case,
Rapanos, that the Clean Water Act is something more than
navigable in fact. But what that more is has to be determined
and assessed.
So, as I indicated earlier to another Senator's question,
the most important thing is to provide certainty, to make sure
that the Clean Water Act helps those at the State level know
where the boundaries are, where they have jurisdiction and
where they don't, so that we can have regulations that are fair
and equitable, and uncertainty is not created.
Senator Rounds. In the lawsuits that you brought against
the Environmental Protection Agency on behalf of the State of
Oklahoma, would it be fair to say that a number of those are
based upon the Environmental Protection Agency failing to
follow its own rules and the promulgation of those rules?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. I think whether it is the MATS
case or the Clean Power Plan case or the WOTUS case, or a
multitude of cases, the courts have agreed that the EPA has
exceeded its authority; that the EPA has not acted within the
framework that Congress has established in performing the role
that it is supposed to perform. That is the reason I mentioned
in my opening statement that process matters, rule of law
matters, federalism matters. Those issues matter because
Congress has said so. It is Congress who gives authority to the
EPA. The EPA is an administrative agency, it is not a
legislative body. So it is important for that agency to act
within the framework, within the substantive authority that
Congress has provided it in doing its job.
In leading the EPA, if confirmed, I think if I do that
effectively, it will provide confidence, certainty to those
that are regulated to know what is expected to them, and
improve our air and improve our water because of that.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning, NOAA, NASA has declared 2016 the hottest year
in the 137-year-old record that has been kept. Donald Trump has
called global warming a hoax caused by the Chinese. Do you
agree that global warming is a hoax?
Mr. Pruitt. I do not, Senator.
Senator Markey. So Donald Trump is wrong?
Mr. Pruitt. I do not believe that climate change is a hoax.
Senator Markey. OK. That is important for the President to
hear.
Mr. Pruitt, you have made a career working on behalf of the
fossil fuel industry to eviscerate regulations designed to
protect public health and the environment. You have sued the
EPA 19 times to stop clean air and water protections. Eight of
those cases are still ongoing, including your litigation that
challenges critical rules that reduce levels of hazardous smog,
mercury, and carbon pollution.
As EPA Administrator, you would be in a position to serve
as plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on these ongoing eight
lawsuits, and that would be wrong. In your ethics agreement you
have said that you would not participate in any matter that is
ongoing litigation within 1 year. But Mr. Pruitt, isn't it
correct that these lawsuits may very well continue for much
longer than 1 year?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, I have the letter from the
ethics counsel at the EPA, and the 1-year time period is
intended to address covered entities, entities that I served in
a chairmanship or an officer capacity. The Southern Theological
Seminary, the Windows Ministry, those entities are covered
entities. So if there is a matter that arises before the EPA
within a 1-year period, a particular matter, a specific case
that involves those entities, then the recusal would be in
order. But that is really the focus of the 1-year timeline.
Senator Markey. So will you agree to recuse yourself from
those lawsuits which you brought as the Attorney General of
Oklahoma against the EPA, not just for 1 year, but for the
entirety of the time that you are the Administrator of the EPA?
Will you commit to doing that?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, for clarity, I think that it is
important to note that the 1-year time period, again, is for
those covered entities that were highlighted in the EPA letter.
With respect to pending litigation, the EPA ethics counsel
has indicated, with respect to particular matters and specific
parties, there will be an opportunity to get counsel from the
EPA at that point to determine what steps could be taken to
avoid appearances of impropriety.
Senator Markey. Are you saying that you will not recuse
yourself from the actual matters which you are suing the EPA on
right now as Attorney General of Oklahoma for the time that you
are the head of the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. I am not saying that at all, Senator.
Senator Markey. You are saying that. Will you recuse
yourself?
Mr. Pruitt. I am saying that the EPA ethics counsel has
indicated those cases will require a review by the EPA ethics
counsel, and if it involves a particular matter with a specific
party then recusal would potentially be in order, and I would
follow the guidance and counsel of EPA ethics.
Senator Markey. This is a clear line for the American
public, given your record from Oklahoma in suing the EPA on all
of these matters, that if you don't agree to recuse yourself,
then again you become plaintiff, defendant, judge, and jury on
the cases that you are bringing right now as Attorney General
of Oklahoma against the EPA, and the EPA is for all of the
people of the United States, not just the fossil fuel industry
of Oklahoma. So you are not committing--and I think that is a
big mistake, Mr. Pruitt--to recuse yourself from those cases.
It is critical.
Moreover, you also are in a position to initiate
regulations that could overturn smog protections, carbon
pollution protections that are right now on the books that you
are suing as Attorney General of Oklahoma to overturn. Would
you commit to not regulating, promulgating new regulations in
any of the areas where you right now are suing the EPA? Would
you make a commitment that you would recuse yourself from doing
that?
Mr. Pruitt. Let me be clear, Senator, because we talked
about this in your office, and I very much enjoyed the
conversation that we had there in this area that we talked
about. I have every willingness and desire to recuse, as
directed by EPA ethics counsel, and if directed to do so, I
will in fact do so, to recuse from those cases. There is a
difference, as you know, between pending litigation in a
particular matter with specific parties and prospective
rulemaking. Rulemaking goes through a process.
Senator Markey. What the American people are expecting here
is the EPA doesn't turn into every polluter's ally. The only
way to ensure that is for you to recuse yourself from the cases
that you have brought, because most of them are to overturn the
clean air, clean water, smog regulations. So to create an
appearance of independence, it is critical that you recuse
yourself; otherwise----
Mr. Pruitt. And I will----
Senator Markey [continuing]. Otherwise, honestly, people
are going to think that it is not just the fox guarding the hen
house, it is the fox destroying the hen house, because you
haven't distanced yourself from the actual litigation that you
have initiated on most of the key issues that you are now going
to have responsibility for protecting in terms of the public
health of the entire country.
Mr. Pruitt. And Senator, I can say to you unequivocally I
will recuse, as directed by EPA ethics counsel.
Senator Markey. And I am saying to you that you should just
start out saying I am going to recuse myself from anything that
relates to any litigation that I have initiated as the Attorney
General of Oklahoma that questions the clean air, clean water,
climate change, smog, or mercury protections which are right
now on the books that the EPA is honored to protect. And if you
don't do that, then we are going to have a fundamental conflict
of interest that is presented by your presence as the
Administrator of the EPA. It just gets down to being a matter
as simple as that.
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired. Thank
you, Senator Markey.
For clarification, will you fully follow the advice of the
EPA ethics counsel?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Just for additional clarification, regarding conflicts of
interest, I note the letter to this Committee on January 4th
that I am submitting to the record. ``We''--this is the Office
of Government Ethics--``believe that this nominee is in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations governing
conflicts of interest.''
And then there was a letter yesterday from Walter Shaub,
Director, Office of Government Ethics, responding to a letter
from Senator Carper and other EPW Democrats regarding Attorney
General Pruitt and potential conflicts of interest, and they
say, ``If the Office of Government Ethics has transmitted a
certified financial disclosure report and an ethics agreement
to the Senate,''--which they have--``it means the Office of
Government Ethics is satisfied that all financial conflicts of
interest have been identified and resolved.''
Senator Ernst.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for appearing in front
of us today. I enjoyed our conversation, both one-on-one and
then in a group setting as well, and I would like to go back
and revisit our discussion on the RFS. As you know, Iowa is
home to 43 ethanol refineries. We are the largest producer of
ethanol west or east of the Missouri River.
President-elect Trump reiterated his support for biofuels
while he was campaigning cross Iowa and all across the Midwest,
and those areas of the country overwhelmingly supported his
candidacy and led to his victory. And thank you for stating
once again that you would honor his commitment to biofuels by
carrying out the RFS as intended by Congress.
Policy certainty is key for economic growth, and this is
something that we discussed in my office. Unfortunately, as a
result of uncertainty surrounding the EPA's renewable fuel
volume targets in 2014, 2015, and 2016, second generation
biofuel investment decreased and proposed projects moved
overseas. Fortunately, the EPA has recently changed its course
and released updated volume targets for the RFS that meet the
levels prescribed by Congress.
If confirmed as Administrator, what will you do to continue
to provide certainty so that investment can continue to happen
right here at home in the United States?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Senator, as you indicated in our
meeting, the importance of the infrastructure, the investment
that has occurred in reliance upon the law was passed in 2005
and updated in 2007, and as I indicated earlier to Senator
Fischer's question, the latitude discretion that has been given
to the EPA Administrator with respect to waiving those
statutory targets should be judiciously used. It shouldn't be
automatic; it should be something that the EPA Administrator
seeks to comply with and adhere to because of the will of this
body.
So I think those waivers obviously are in order, but with
respect to market conditions we have less consumption today,
more fuel-efficient vehicles. Market conditions have changed
since 2005, but despite that the EPA Administrator should not
use that to undermine or to somehow put into question the
commitments made by this body in the Renewable Fuel Standards
statute.
Senator Ernst. Thank you for your commitment to the RFS and
the intention of Congress.
I also want to touch on an issue you mentioned in your
testimony, which is the level of fear and distrust many folks
have of the EPA. When I am home in Iowa I host town halls all
across the State and just want to hear what is going on in
their communities, and what I hear, without fail, at these town
halls is that folks are frustrated with the EPA and the gotcha
mentality that has stemmed from the Agency. My constituents
tell me the EPA is out to get them rather than work with them,
and there is a huge lack of trust between many of my
constituents and the EPA. And if we take a look specifically at
the WOTUS rule, Iowans truly feel that the EPA ignored their
comments and concerns, threw them under the rug and then just
moved forward.
We know now that the EPA relied on gimmicky mass e-mails
and social media events to prop up their message, and then they
used those tactics to insinuate that anyone who had reasonable
concerns about the WOTUS rule are somehow in favor of dirty
water, which is absolutely ridiculous. And this type of culture
that was created under the Obama administration has no place,
has no place here.
So, Mr. Pruitt, what do you plan to do in your first days
as the Administrator to improve the relationships EPA has with
the hardworking folks across the country?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, as I indicated in my opening
statement, this paradigm that we live within today, that if you
are pro-energy, you are anti-environment, if you are pro-
environment, you are anti-energy, is something that I think is
just a false narrative. We can do better than that. In fact,
this country has shown for decades that we can grow our economy
and be a good steward of our air, land, and water, and we need
to get back to that.
Cooperative federalism is at the heart of many of the
environmental statutes that have been passed by this body, and
the reason for that is it is the States, many times, that have
the resources, the expertise, and understanding what the unique
challenges are for the environment and improving our water and
our air. It is not that they don't care about it. Senator
Whitehouse indicated a devolution of authority to the States
would create a problem. That is not what I am advocating. And I
think we hear in the marketplace we need a partnership, a true
partnership between the EPA in performing its role along with
the States in performing theirs. And if we had that
partnership, as opposed to punishment, as opposed to
uncertainty and duress that we currently see in the
marketplace, I think we will have better air, better water
quality as a result.
Senator Ernst. Thank you. I look forward to that
partnership and transparency.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt, I want to clarify your response to Senator
Ernst on this whole congressional intent when it comes to the
RFS. What I want to know, and what the people of Illinois, we
are also a great producer of ethanol, what we need to know is
where exactly you stand on the RFS. Are you the Attorney
General who only 3 years ago sided with big oil to slam the
RFS? You said that RFS was ``unworkable'' and also that it was
a ``flawed program.''
So I am a little confused by what you are saying today. Are
you that Mr. Pruitt, or are you the Scott Pruitt today who is
saying all the right things in this confirmation hearing and in
these meetings to try to reassure pro-RFS States by repeating
nice sounding, but ultimately vague and hollow mantra that, if
confirmed, you would enforce the RFS law as written by
Congress?
As you and I are quite well aware of, such a statement
essentially dodges the critical issue for biofuels producers
and workers, because under the law the EPA has considerable
discretion to adjust the renewable volume obligation in a
manner that you would argue is contrary to congressional
intent, yet may be compliant with the explicit letter of the
statute. So, as EPA Administrator, you could still technically
be in compliance with Congress, with the law, but actually be
working against it; and your answers today have not clarified
that.
So my question to you, Mr. Pruitt, is this: Which specific
actions has EPA taken since 2007 while administering the RFS
that you, in your view, are not consistent with congressional
intent? Can you name any?
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator. The Administrator and the
EPA routinely misses the statutory targets in publishing those
each year, creating great uncertainty in the marketplace. In
fact, in some years they have missed the timeline as far as
submitting those targets by over a year; in some cases over 2
years.
Senator Duckworth. OK, so let me ask you this, then. Yes or
no, do you believe that Congress intended for the RFS to
increase the amount of renewable fuel blended in our Nation's
liquid transportation fuel supply, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. Without question.
Senator Duckworth. Without question.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Duckworth. All right. My second question, then,
is--yes or no--do you believe Congress intended for the RFS to
be a stable policy that drives private investment in the
renewable energy industry?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Duckworth. And finally, if confirmed, will you
commit to opposing any and all proposals to move the point of
obligation under the RFS program from refiners to blenders?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you know, the EPA is actually
involved in a comment period on that very issue, and to
prejudge the outcome of that I think would be--I would not be
able to do that. There are many aspects of the program, from
the trading program, the monitoring of fraud in the system,
that need to be better administrated by the EPA. These have
been administration issues. The EPA has created uncertainty. We
talked about--a minute ago, with the Senator--about the amount
of investment that has gone into the infrastructure because of
the 2005 law. Those individuals need to have certainty and
confidence that the RFS is going to be enforced and
administered pursuant to the desires of Congress.
Senator Duckworth. Right. But if you were to do that, then
you would actually have to answer yes because to move the RFS
program from refiners to blenders is actually one of those ways
that you can actually undermine the RFS standards as intended
by Congress, which you yourself just now said was intended to
increase the amount of biofuels blended into the fuel supply of
the United States.
This is my problem. On the one hand your entire track
record shows you to be someone who opposes the RFS, and yet
here in front of Congress and in meetings with Senators you are
giving these vague answers that sound right when it comes to
the RFS but really opens all sorts of back doors for you to
oppose the Renewable Fuel Standard, and that is very
troublesome because all across the Midwest--you know, for those
of us who have fought to strengthen national security by
lessening our country's dangerous dependence on foreign oil, I
am really incredibly concerned about the future of the RFS on
American-produced biofuels under a Scott Pruitt-led EPA. And I
am also incredibly concerned about what you are going to do in
terms of protecting the environment.
In your answer to one of my colleagues about what the role
of the EPA is, what is the job of the EPA, one of the first
questions you got, you spent 5 minutes talking before you
actually said protect the environment. You talked all about
reducing EPA's influence over States for a good 5 minutes
before you actually got to the environment. And then for my
farmers, my corn and soybean producers for my biofuel industry,
the RFS is critical in order to continue that. And I would
rather burn American-made American-grown corn and soybean in my
gas tank then I would oil from the Middle East. I have already
been to a war fought over oil in the Middle East, and I don't
intend to allow us to continue to do that, which is why the RFS
is so critical not just for the jobs in Illinois, not just to
support Illinois agriculture, but for our national security
when it comes to where we are going to get our energy supply.
I am out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Duckworth.
Mr. Pruitt. If I may, Senator, let me say to you the role
of the Administrator of the EPA is to enforce and administer
the RFS program to carry out the objectives of that statute.
Those targets that have been put in that statute by this body
need to be respected. The discretion authority, the waiver
authority of the Administrator needs to be judiciously used to
address those concerns that we talked about.
So I don't want you to have any concern about the intent,
objective, or will, if confirmed, of carrying out the RFS
mandate or the statute in its whole.
Senator Duckworth. That very answer concerns me because you
have not actually said that you are going to stick with it.
Senator Barrasso. I would like to submit for the record
two. One, a letter from the American Farm Bureau Federation
which strongly supports the nomination of Scott Pruitt as
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
urges a vote in favor of his confirmation. The second is a
letter from the Democrat Attorney General of the State of
Arkansas, former Democrat Attorney General, Dustin McDaniel,
who has this to say about Attorney General Scott Pruitt's work
on the stem phosphorus levels in the Illinois River watershed.
He said, ``Recent press accounts regarding these efforts
unfairly mischaracterize the work that was done by General
Pruitt and his team. He was a staunch defender of sound science
and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the environment
of his State. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was able to
bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to
reach an outcome that was heralded by most credible observers
as both positive and historic.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Attorney General Pruitt, for your
willingness to serve, and your family. I think everybody at the
dais here realizes these really are family affairs that truly
affect everyone.
In recent years EPA has made it increasingly difficult for
Arkansas to manage its delegated national pollutant discharge
elimination system. Too often the permits, rulemakings, or
other actions sent to EPA for review are returned with demands
far more restrictive, additional expensive data collection is
required, and other costly onerous requirements. New leadership
at EPA has an opportunity to correct this coercive federalism
and instead restore cooperative federalism as intended. The
States have the expertise and local knowledge necessary to
administer environmental programs.
Mr. Pruitt, EPA has the opportunity to play a significant
role in supporting a move back to cooperative federalism. Can
you please explain how you plan to change the EPA's State
dynamic?
My experience with EPA, and being on transportation in the
House, being Ranking Member on water there, Ranking Member of
the Senate is the EPA, their attitude is we are with you unless
you come out with a finding that is contrary, and then we are
going to do it our way. So can you address that?
Mr. Pruitt. I think two things, Senator. One, as we
indicated earlier, rule of law and making sure that the
authority granted to the States under State implementation
plans, delegation under certain clean water provisions, that
that is respected. But also I think the EPA needs to provide
more assistance to the States and work in partnership and be
proactive. Those regional administrators that we have across
the country need to be seen as partners and not adversaries.
So I think restoring that confidence, restoring that
relationship and seeking to do so is very, very important in
carrying out this partnership that we know exists under the
various environmental statutes.
Senator Boozman. Very good.
For the past 8 years, EPA has acted as a political arm of
the Obama administration time and time again. We have seen
rules developed not based on sound science but on political
ideology. When rules have been released, States and private
sector--and even Congress--have had trouble getting EPA to show
the science that helped develop these rules.
Under your leadership can we expect EPA to be more
transparent, in other words, how the rules are being developed,
the science behind them? And you have continued to allude to
this, and I think it is so important, as Administrator of the
EPA, can we count on you to base all of your decisions on the
rule of law, not on the Administrator's or even your own
political ideology?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, Senator, in response to the latter
point of your question. Public participation is important.
There is a reason why, in rulemaking, that you take comment.
There is a reason, as I indicated earlier to Senator Ernst,
that you involve those that are impacted by rulemaking, because
you want to understand the impact, both economically and
otherwise, in the benefit of the environment as well as making
sure that you craft rules and regulations that take all those
things into consideration. So hearing the voices of all
Americans in that rulemaking process, responding to those
comments in the record before rules are finalized,
transparency, objectivity, a commitment to process is very
important, in my view, of restoring the confidence of the
American people in the rulemaking processes that occur here in
Washington, DC.
Senator Boozman. So, again, releasing the scientific data
behind that would be something that you would very much
support?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Boozman. A problem with the EPA the EPW Committee
has faced with the current Administration is a lack of
communication. Time and time again EPA either did not respond
to questions from Committee members or at the very least took
months to respond. Under your leadership can we expect EPA to
get Committee members answers in a timely fashion?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. As I indicated in my opening
statement, listening is an important role of leadership, and
listening to the voices of folks here in Congress. As I went
through and met with many of you through this process, there
were issues particular to your State that you made me aware of,
and I, if confirmed as EPA Administrator, seek to be very
active in listening to the needs with respect to your various
States and respond to this body with respect to questions.
Senator Boozman. Let me just comment on the Arkansas-
Oklahoma issue. I was the Congressman in that district, so I
inherited that in 2001. I have been working on this for 15
years. And I appreciate you and Attorney General McDaniel doing
a very good job of getting things done. On the other hand, the
idea that somehow you were soft, in fact, I would argue that
the agreement that was reached was way too restrictive and is
probably one of the most restrictive watersheds as far as
phosphorus requirements of anyplace in the United States.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as you know, Senator, in that process we
actually selected a biologist from Baylor University to engage
in a scientific study on what the phosphorus levels should be,
the numeric quality of the water, and it was determined at the
end of that process that .037 was the right standard and is now
enforceable on both sides of the border for the first time in
history. So it is a very important outcome.
Senator Boozman. No, I understand, and I commend you on the
process. You know, the implication here is somehow, you know,
you came up with a deal that was too soft, and if anything I
would argue that it was perhaps a little bit too harsh. But I
do appreciate the process. I know that you and our former
Attorney General were able to do something that had been going
on for decades.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. You have been at it now for about 2
hours. If you can stay with us `til we finish the first round
of questioning; we have about five or six additional questions
coming.
Senator Harris is next, and then we will break at about
12:30, if that is all right.
Senator Carper. Can I make a unanimous consent request, Mr.
Chairman?
Senator Barrasso. Yes, sir.
Senator Carper. I would like to ask unanimous consent to
submit for the record the legal brief against the Mercury and
Air Toxics rule which Mr. Pruitt supported. Stated in that
brief, I will just quote it, it says, ``Human exposure to
methylmercury resulting from coal-fired electric-generating
utilities is exceedingly small.'' That is the quote.
Also ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
recent article that quotes, I think from the New York Times, it
quotes a 40-year career employee of the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality that has him saying these words: ``Mr.
Pruitt has advocated and stood up for the profits of
businesses, be it poultry companies or the energy industry and
other polluters, at the expense of people who have to drink the
water or breathe the air.''
Other statements have been introduced for the record saying
quite a different thing about Mr. Pruitt. I think it is only
fair to go to someone who has worked there for 40 years that
has quite a different view than the one than the witness has
expressed.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Harris.
Senator Harris. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, as an Attorney General, I know as former
Attorney General of California that we as attorneys general
have several duties which include representing our clients,
State agencies, and also the discretion and power to initiate
lawsuits in our independent capacity as attorneys general.
Would you agree with that?
Mr. Pruitt. Some States provide more latitude than others.
Senator Harris. Does your State?
Mr. Pruitt. Our State has not provided constitutionally as
much authority as other States----
Senator Harris. Have you never exercised your independent
capacity as Attorney General to bring a legal action?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I would have to know more specifics
about what you are referring to. But in response to your
question, it does----
Senator Harris. Have you ever exercised your independent
capacity as the Attorney General of your State to initiate a
legal action, yes or no?
Mr. Pruitt. The litigations that we have engaged in largely
have been in consultation with agencies that----
Senator Harris. Largely. So you have also exercised your
independent capacity as the Attorney General of your State, is
that correct or not?
Mr. Pruitt. I may have, Senator. I don't know.
Senator Harris. You don't know if you have or not? You have
been Attorney General for your State for almost 7 years, is
that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Approaching that, yes. Six years, actually.
Senator Harris. And I have read that you have initiated,
and it has been mentioned before, 14 lawsuits in your
independent capacity as the Attorney General of Oklahoma, and
apparently 7 of those cases have been resolved, 6 of which you
have lost. My question is--I hear that you are a lover of
baseball. What would your batting average then be?
Mr. Pruitt. It was generally about .300, which is pretty
good for a second baseman.
Senator Harris. My calculation is it is .142.
Moving on, would you agree that as attorneys who have the
responsibility for doing the work of justice, and particularly
as an Attorney General, that we make decisions based on
propriety and impropriety; we make decisions based on what is
not only an actual conflict but what is an appearance of
conflict? Would you agree that is important?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe that is important, Senator.
Senator Harris. OK. And so on this issue of whether or not
you would be recused if you are nominated and actually voted in
as the Administrator of the EPA, you have said that you will
recuse yourself from the cases your office has been involved
with if directed to do that. Do you agree that you also have
the discretion to recuse yourself from those cases?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe, Senator, the rules of professional
conduct, in addition to the review that OGE----
Senator Harris. Do you believe that you have the discretion
to recuse yourself from the cases that you were involved with
as Attorney General?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is actually stronger than that,
Senator. I actually have an obligation in those instances, as
directed by ethics counsel, and that is the reason I indicated
earlier that I will recuse.
Senator Harris. Independent of any direction from ethics
counsel, do you agree you have the discretion to recuse
yourself from those cases?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe that it is important to maintain----
Senator Harris. I am asking about whether or not you
actually have the discretion, the power, to recuse yourself. Do
you disagree or agree with that?
Mr. Pruitt. Clearly, there is a discretion to recuse.
Senator Harris. Clearly.
You are familiar with the Clean Air Act, yes?
Mr. Pruitt. I am sorry, Senator?
Senator Harris. You are familiar with the Clean Air Act?
Mr. Pruitt. I am.
Senator Harris. And as you may know, section 209,
subdivision (b) of the Clean Air Act, recognizes California's
authority to issue air pollution standards for new motor
vehicles that go above and beyond Federal standards. The EPA
has historically recognized California's authority to issue new
motor vehicle pollution standards that go above and beyond
Federal standards.
In your opening statement you write, ``It is not EPA's
mission to be against sectors of industry in general or against
particular States.'' Will you commit, then, to upholding that
same standard and recognizing California's authority to issue
its own new motor vehicle air pollution standards?
Mr. Pruitt. You know, Senator, as you indicated, California
was actually regulating those standards before the EPA was
actually created, which is why the California waiver exists
under statute.
Senator Harris. Do you agree to uphold that same standard
that has been held by your previous Administrators?
Mr. Pruitt. I agree to review that as each Administrator
before me has. It has been granted at times and denied at
times.
Senator Harris. Do you agree to uphold it? Reviewing and
upholding are two different points.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you know, Administrators in the
past have not granted the waiver and in fact have granted the
waiver. That is a review process that will be conducted if
confirmed.
Senator Harris. What is your intention, sir?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't know without going through the process
to determine that, Senator, and one would not want to presume
the outcome.
Senator Harris. In the 14 cases that have been previously
mentioned, in each of those cases regulated companies were also
a party to your suits; is that correct?
Mr. Pruitt. In some instances, yes.
Senator Harris. In most of them. Can you name a few
instances in which you have filed a lawsuit in your independent
capacity as Attorney General against a corporate entity for
violating State or Federal pollution laws?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I have a list here that has been
provided.
Senator Harris. Can you name them, please?
Mr. Pruitt. Sure. There is a list that has been----
Senator Harris. Can you name one?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes. The first is the Mahard Egg Farm involving
a CAFO situation and clean up of a large hen operation that
affected water quality. Coco Manufacturing----
Senator Harris. Did you file a lawsuit in that case, sir?
Mr. Pruitt. I did, Senator.
Senator Harris. OK. And what was the outcome of that case?
Mr. Pruitt. We received a good outcome against them.
Senator Harris. And the name of that entity was what?
Mr. Pruitt. Mahard Egg Farm.
Senator Harris. And can you name any other cases where you
have actually filed a lawsuit against a corporate entity for
violating Federal pollution laws?
Mr. Pruitt. In fact, that case was brought in conjunction
with the EPA. And I want to address something, Senator.
Earlier, when you say independent capacity, those cases that
you referred to, the list of cases, were as an extension of the
DEQ in the State of Oklahoma, an extension of agencies at the
State level that had authority granted to them by this body
that we were----
Senator Harris. And I understand that role, as a former
Attorney General, but that is you representing your client. I
am asking about your independent capacity as the Attorney
General of your State.
Let's move on.
On the issue of mercury----
Senator Barrasso. I would suggest that the Senator's time
has expired.
Senator Harris. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I would like to introduce for the record a letter by J.D.
Strong, who is the Director of the Oklahoma Department of
Wildlife Conservation, who in reference to the submission
recently by the Ranking Member makes reference to that former
employee who is retired from the State of Oklahoma and is
currently serving as Vice Chairman of the Oklahoma chapter of
the Sierra Club. So the references are from now someone who is
no longer a State employee but the Vice Chairman of the
Oklahoma chapter of the Sierra Club.
But this letter from Mr. Strong goes to talk about the
efforts by Attorney General Pruitt, who says, ``For the past 6
years General Pruitt has been instrumental in many of our
successes and has never asked me to compromise regulatory
efforts to benefit industry.'' He says, ``On the contrary. All
of our projects and cases that involved his office were given
staff support at the highest level, and more often than not
resulted in more stringent environmental protection. He has
been a strong ally in defending our ability to continue the
great progress that we made in protecting Oklahoma's
environment.''
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, in response, let me just ask
for unanimous consent to put in the record, and this is on
behalf of Senator Whitehouse, rebuttal articles for Mr.
Pruitt's claim on litigation against fossil companies. Some of
the topline points from these articles are, one, that they are
fraud cases first and foremost; second, some were brought by
his predecessor, Drew Edmondson; third point, the case against
BP was filed and left dormant at least for any publication; and
also that Mr. Pruitt fought against the participation of State
whistleblowers in the litigation, and that was a reference to
qui tam action.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Pruitt, it is good to see you again. Thank you for
your willingness to serve. And to your family, as you know, it
is a team effort, so I want to thank them as well.
I appreciated your opening statement, particularly your
written statement, and I want to emphasize we all want clean
air. We all want clean water. My State of Alaska has some of
the cleanest air, cleanest water, pristine environment
literally in the world. But your emphasis on the ability to do
both, to grow an economy, to develop our resources responsibly,
and protect the environment I think is very, very important,
and I appreciate that focus.
I believe the EPA needs a serious course correction. As
Senator Ernst talked about, there is a lot of anger, even fear
of this Agency throughout many parts of the country, and I
believe you are the right person to provide that course
correction and do something that is very important, which is
regain the trust of the American people that I think has been
lost in a lot of places in America because of the overreach,
because of the lack of focusing on the law.
So there has been a lot of discussion this morning about
cooperative federalism. Can you explain it in a little more
detail? Is that your term, or is that a term that--did you come
up with that, or is that something that was actually directed
by Congress?
Mr. Pruitt. Directed by Congress, Senator.
Senator Sullivan. And so in the Clean Air Act and the Clean
Water Act who was given, what entity in our republican form of
government was given the primary responsibility over clean air
and clean water in the United States?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, as you know, Senator, under the Clean Air
Act there is something called State implementation plans that
the EPA and the States review together, but the States have
that responsibility of adopting the plan----
Senator Sullivan. So isn't it correct actually in the law
it says----
Mr. Pruitt. It is.
Senator Sullivan [continuing]. The primary responsibility
under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water--and who directed that?
Mr. Pruitt. Congress.
Senator Sullivan. OK. So when you are talking about
cooperative federalism, that is not some Scott Pruitt invented;
you are focusing on the intent of the Congress.
Mr. Pruitt. Probably more so than any statutes that have
been adopted by Congress historically, the environmental
statutes that we know, from clean water to clean air to Safe
Drinking Water Act, many pieces of legislation, Congress has
been very explicit and very specific in saying that cooperative
federalism, the role of the States is important, should be
respected, and should be emphasized.
Senator Sullivan. So let me show you a chart here. This is
the Waters of the U.S. in the States and entities that sued to
stop that rule. Thirty-two. Democrats and Republicans and
Independents. Do you think this is an example of cooperative
federalism? And if not, if you are confirmed, what are you
going to do to get back to what is not a Scott Pruitt idea, it
is the direct direction of the Congress of the United States?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, when you think about the relationship
between the EPA and the States, the States are not mere vessels
of Federal will; they don't exist simply to carry out Federal
dictates from Washington, DC. There are substantive
requirements, obligations, authority, jurisdiction granted to
the States under our environmental statutes. That needs to be
respected. When it is not respected, that is what spawned most
of this litigation that has been referenced here today. And why
does it spawn it? Because it matters. It matters that the
States participate in the way that Congress has directed, and
they have been unable to do so for a number of years.
Senator Sullivan. So, again, cooperative federalism, you
are carrying out the will of Congress when you are focused on
that issue.
Mr. Pruitt. That is exactly right. The expertise, the
resources, the knowledge, the awareness of how to fix
environmental issues at the local level is something that is
important for the entire country to know.
Senator Sullivan. So I am a former Attorney General myself
who has sued the EPA, and some of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle, Judge Booker's comments, I think he tried to
equate a little bit suing the EPA, not caring for Oklahoma's
children. Do you care about Oklahoma's children?
Mr. Pruitt. Without question. I have a couple sitting
behind me.
Senator Sullivan. Fourteen lawsuits. And again, Senator
Boozman mentioned this, what has been the primary focus of
those lawsuits? It is not that you don't care about the
environment, is it?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely not. I care very much about the
environment. It is to restore the relationship and ensure the
relationship that Congress has directed, the role of the States
in improving our environment. There is an idea in Washington
that the States, those in Oklahoma or in Alaska or other parts
of the country, don't care about the water we drink or the air
we breathe. The farmers and ranchers, those in industry in the
State of Oklahoma, most of them are very committed to that.
When they have not been we have taken enforcement action
against them.
Senator Sullivan. And just one final question. A lot of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle spent a lot of time,
and I think Senator Sanders is up next, vilifying the oil and
gas industry, somehow bad actors, polluters. According to the
American Petroleum Institute, 364,000 Oklahomans work in the
oil and gas industry or related service sectors. Are these
people bad actors? Are they polluters? Can you describe? You
talk about the good people in your written statement. Who are
these people, and are you representing them when you are
bringing these kinds of actions? Are they evil people?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Senator. They want to comply with the law.
They want to know what is expected of them. They care about the
air they breathe and the water they drink, and they want to
make sure that the EPA is partnering with State agencies and
industry to ensure that that outcome occurs.
Senator Sullivan. And aren't these hundreds of thousands of
people part of that industry?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely. In fact, 25 percent of our entire
State budget in Oklahoma is from that industry. This is a State
concern. And more than that, we have significant regulation
over this industry. Our Corporation Commission has oversight
over many of these issues. So we have regulatory bodies from
DEQ to the Corporation Commission to others that are involved
in making sure that the air we breathe and the water we drink
is clear in the State of Oklahoma.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Pruitt, for being willing to serve this
Administration, for your interest in public service, and your
past public service.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Gillibrand. I want to talk to you about some of the
constituents in my State and the challenges, the very real
challenges we face. First, we had millions of people's lives
upended with Superstorm Sandy. I mean, millions of people. We
had parents who lost their children who drowned because of
surges of water coming through their homes, through the
streets. The devastation was literally unparalleled in my
State; it was just something we had never seen before. And we
are going to be looking to you to protect these families and
protect these communities, because we know with global climate
change the incidences of super storms and violent weather
impacts is changed; it is very, very different. And you have
already told folks that you do believe that global climate
change is real; it has been caused by human activity.
Do you believe also that sea levels are rising?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I believe that the EPA, addressing
this issue because of the MATS v. EPA case and the endangerment
finding has obligations to address the CO2 issue. In
doing so, they need to follow the processes as set up by
Congress. So I think it is very important to do both.
Senator Gillibrand. But you have studied this issue of sea
levels. You do realize they are rising. And it is one of the
reasons why these storm surges were so high and devastating
communities all across New York City. So I need you to be
vigilant because lives are at stake, and I think you have the
purview to do that. Will you be vigilant?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, we will obviously address those issues
that we talked about in your office, and I appreciate your
passion on this issue.
Senator Gillibrand. One of the other issues that we talked
about that I think is equally as concerning is issues of
mercury that have been raised, about asthma rates that have
been raised, about groundwater polluted. I have looked at your
record. Most of the lawsuits you filed as Attorney General were
related to businesses, specifically what was important for your
State in terms of employers and businesses. And the few
lawsuits you did file about human safety were few and far
between.
But this role as head of the EPA, you are going to have a
much more important role to play, and I want to talk
specifically about mercury. If you believe that mercury is a
threat to public health but oppose the remedy of reducing
mercury air pollution from power plants because it is too
costly, what, then, do you think you should do, or what should
be done to address the mercury pollution?
Mr. Pruitt. Let me say, Senator, mercury is something--it
is a hazardous air pollutant under section 112. It is something
that the EPA has authority to regulate and should regulate. It
should do so, though, within the framework established by this
body, and the Supreme Court said that the EPA did not follow
the cost-benefit obligations. It is not that the benefits
outweigh the costs; it is just that they simply didn't engage
in a proper record-based support for their rule. So that goes
back to earlier questions with other Senators about the process
mattering, being committed to the rule of law and the
rulemaking authority that Congress has given the EPA in making
sure that as rules are passed, that they can be upheld in
court.
Senator Gillibrand. But I need you also to be worried about
human health. I understand there is a cost, but when you are
talking about lives, when you are talking about children who
can't breathe--I have been to the emergency room at 2 in the
morning with a child who can't breathe; it is a horrible thing.
We have had children die in New York City because none of their
teachers, no administrators in the schools knew what to do when
a child has an asthma attack. It is a huge problem. So I need
you to care about human health and really believe that the
cost, when human health is at risk, when people are dying, is
far higher than it is the cost to that polluter to clean up the
air and change their processes. I need you to feel it as if
your children sitting behind you are the ones in the emergency
room. I need you to know it.
Mr. Pruitt. And Senator, I would say to you there are
certain instances where costs can't even be considered, as you
know. Those criteria pollutants under our NAAQS program, cost
is not even a factor because human health is the focus.
Senator Gillibrand. So let's talk about that. So you and I
previewed this in my office. We have a horrible problem in New
York State with Superfund sites and with groundwater that is
polluted. We have PFOA in our water. We have the largest PCB
Superfund site in the United States in the Hudson River. When
families who don't have money fish in the Hudson River, they
eat those fish, they get ill. It is horrible. The contaminants
are real, they are pervasive, and they are destroying lives.
They are also destroying the economy, because when you have
contaminants all over the place you can't sell your house, you
can't put in industries that are relying on tourism. It is a
huge problem.
So PFOA is an example of a chemical that needs to be
tested. I need you to put it No. 1 on your list, to test it,
and if it is the carcinogen that many scientists have said it
is, it needs to be banned.
Mr. Pruitt. The TSCA authority that has been granted by
this body, you and I talked about that in your office, PFOA
needs to be addressed quickly, even under the Safe Drinking
Water Act as well.
Senator Gillibrand. Will you commit to doing that work?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
request. I would like to submit for the record--and this is
sort of in response to a question raised by Senator Harris. Mr.
Pruitt, in his response to her question on whether he had ever
filed a lawsuit against a corporate entity for violating State
or Federal pollution, apparently was not correct. I want to
just submit for the record a list of cases that have been
active under Mr. Pruitt's leadership. It notes which ones were
started by his predecessor, and it shows that the case in which
he mentioned in his exchange with Senator Harris; I think it
was the egg case. That case actually was initiated not by Mr.
Pruitt, but by his predecessor.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Barrasso. And I would like to submit to the record,
as well, having heard that some of my Democratic colleagues
have expressed their concerns that Attorney General Pruitt is
not open to the finding of science, especially as it relates to
climate change, this is not so. I would like to call the
Committee's attention to a letter by the Cornwall Alliance for
the Stewardship of Creation. The letter is signed by 130
scientists, economists, legal scholars, policy experts,
religious leaders, and over 230 other citizens urging Attorney
General Pruitt's confirmation. The group includes David
Legates, who is a Ph.D. in climatology, Professor of
Climatology and Geography at the University of Delaware. The
author praises Pruitt, stating, ``Mr. Pruitt has also
demonstrated understanding of and open-mindedness toward
scientific insights crucial to the formulation and
implementation of environmental regulation.''
The organization's founder and national spokesman, Calvin
Beisner, is quoted in the press release announcing the letter
as saying the following, ``Some environmental activists are
determined to prevent Mr. Pruitt's confirmation, painting him
as a science denier or a climate change denier.'' Mr. Beisner
continues, ``He is neither. He is a solid, common sense
Attorney General who will bring much needed reform to the
EPA.''
Without objection, the letter will be submitted for the
record.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member. I think it has been a good hearing so far. I think we
have a lot of information that will be reassuring to the
American people.
One thing I do object to, though, is something that has
happened for years since I have been a member of this
Committee, and that is somehow to list political contributions
and suggest that somehow they make an individual suspect or not
qualified. My dear friend from Rhode Island showed a poster and
showed some contributions and suggested that based on those
contributions from companies like Southern Company, for
example, who has contributed to my campaign, that his
appropriateness for the job should be challenged.
So I am glad that the Chairman had added to the record this
article from September 6 from the Wall Street Journal,
September 6 of last year, pointing out the Democratic
presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, raised significantly
more money than Donald Trump from the oil and gas industry.
Individuals who worked for oil and gas companies donated
$149,000 to Mr. Trump's GOP campaign as of the date of July 30,
compared with $525,000 to Mrs. Clinton.
Mr. Chairman, I am glad you put this in the record, and
presumably, based on that argument, Hillary Clinton would be
suspect were she to have been nominated for the position of
heading the EPA.
Now, Mr. Attorney General, let's talk about States as
partners. And I enjoyed your exchange with Senator Cardin about
the Chesapeake Bay program. As I understand, you actually
applaud the Chesapeake Bay program and particularly the way the
EPA worked with States as partners, is that correct? And could
you enlarge on that?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I absolutely applaud the effort by the
States to join together in a six-State coalition to address the
quality of the Chesapeake Bay's water quality. That is what we
did in Arkansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas did with the scenic
Illinois River that has already been talked about with Senator
Boozman and others. So I think the effort that they engaged in
was something that other States ought to model, and the EPA
came alongside and took that TMDL and is providing assistance
to those six States with respect to that agreement.
Senator Wicker. Now, with regard to the Clean Power Plan
and the Waters of the United States rules, where did those
regulations go wrong in this respect?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, with respect to the Clean Power Plan, in
the cases, the Supreme Court has actually said--it was an
unprecedented step that the Supreme Court took. Never in
history had the Supreme Court issued a stay against a rule like
the Clean Power Plan, and they did so because of the likelihood
of success on the merits, in the sense that the Clean Power
Plan did not reflect the authority of Congress given to the EPA
to regulate CO2. As an example, with respect to
power generation, there has to be a significant finding that
poses risk to public health and welfare. They did not do that.
They did not go through the proper processes of inside the
fence and regulations of facilities, power generation
facilities.
So those matters, Senator, are about rule of law. And the
same is true with the Waters of the United States rule.
Senator Wicker. And I have not delved into this as an
attorney, as you have, but I can tell you that the Department
of Environmental Quality in my State told me very emphatically
that the Clean Power Plan would put us out of business because
we would not have had an alternative to the coal that we use.
So I hope we can continue to make progress on this issue.
Let me ask you about wood products. The Federal Government
buys a lot of lumber, uses a lot of wood in construction, and
procures a lot of wood. There are standards certifying that the
forests are appropriate. One is the American Tree Farm System;
another is the Sustainable Forestry Initiative.
EPA seems to like a certification program called the FSC,
the Forest Stewardship Council. Problem is, with this
certification program, it excludes 90 percent of the lumber
grown in the United States of America.
We have had a lot of activity on both sides of the aisle in
challenging this, and I object also to a so-called interim
recommendation made by EPA in this regard. As far as I am
concerned it is discrimination against domestic wood, and now
they have come back and told us that this interim
recommendation is under review.
Could you comment about both of these, the idea of an
interim recommendation being imposed on an entire industry and
also give us any thoughts you have about using the Forest
Stewardship Council certification model as opposed to these
other perfectly good Sustainable Forestry Initiative and
American Tree Farm System?
Senator Barrasso. And if I could ask you to do it briefly,
as the Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you and I discussed in our meeting,
I am very concerned about the latter issue, and making sure
that all voices, all options are considered is something the
EPA Administrator should do, and I would seek to do, if
confirmed.
With respect to the interim step, I think that there is a
concern that many have offered throughout the last several
years, that regulators in Washington, not just the EPA, are
seeking to use guidance or other steps to avoid what would be
called formal rulemaking; that Congress has obligated those
agencies to reform to ensure exactly what you just described,
that all voices are heard. And that is unfortunate when
agencies do that, because that is an abuse of the process.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, sir.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I apologize
for being late, but we were at a hearing with Congressman
Price, who is the nominee for HHS. Perhaps not a great idea to
have important nominating hearings at exactly the same time. So
I apologize for not being here earlier.
My office has received a great deal of comments from people
in the State of Vermont, which takes environmental protection
very seriously, as well as from all over the country, and the
fear is that the nomination of Mr. Pruitt is a nomination
designed to protect the fossil fuel industry and not the
environment.
I would like to ask Mr. Pruitt a question. As I understand
it, earlier in this hearing you said that Mr. Trump was wrong
in suggesting, in stating over and over again that climate
change was a ``hoax.'' Is that in fact the case?
Mr. Pruitt. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Sanders. OK. Let me ask you this. As you may know,
some 97 percent of scientists who have written articles for
peer-reviewed journals have concluded that climate change is
real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing
devastating problems in our country and around the world. Do
you believe that climate change is caused by the emission, by
carbon emissions by human activity?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, you weren't here during my opening
statement, but as I indicated in my opening statement, the
climate is changing and human activity contributes to that in
some manner.
Senator Sanders. In some manner.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, sir.
Senator Sanders. Ninety-seven percent of the scientists who
wrote articles in peer-reviewed journals believe that human
activity is the fundamental reason we are seeing climate
change. You disagree with that?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe the ability to measure with precision
the degree of human activity's impact on the climate is subject
to more debate on whether the climate is changing or the human
activity contributes to it.
Senator Sanders. While you are not certain, the vast
majority of scientists are telling us that if we do not get our
act together and transform our energy system away from fossil
fuel, there is a real question as to the quality of the planet
that we are going to be leaving our children and our
grandchildren. So you are applying for a job as Administrator
for the EPA to protect our environment. Overwhelming majority
of scientists say we have got to act boldly, and you are
telling me that there needs to be more debate on this issue and
that we should not be acting boldly.
Mr. Pruitt. No, Senator. As I have indicated, the climate
is changing and human activity impacts that.
Senator Sanders. But you haven't told me why you think the
climate is changing.
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, the job of the Administrator is
to carry out the statutes as passed by this body and to----
Senator Sanders. Why is the climate changing?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, in response to the CO2
issue, the EPA Administrator is constrained by statutes----
Senator Sanders. I am asking you a personal opinion.
Mr. Pruitt. My personal opinion is immaterial----
Senator Sanders. Really?
Mr. Pruitt [continuing]. To the job of carrying out----
Senator Sanders. You are going to be the head of the agency
to protect the environment, and your personal feelings about
whether climate change is caused by human activity and carbon
emissions are immaterial?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I have acknowledged to you that the
human activity impacts the climate.
Senator Sanders. Impacts.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Scientific community doesn't tell us it
impacts; they say it is the cause of climate change, and we
have to transform our energy system. Do you believe we have to
transform our energy system in order to protect the planet for
future generations?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe the EPA has a very important role at
regulating the emissions of CO2.
Senator Sanders. You didn't answer my question. Do you
believe we have to transform our energy system away from fossil
fuel, to do what the scientific community is telling us, in
order to make sure that this planet is healthy for our children
and grandchildren?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I believe that the Administrator has a
very important role to perform in regulating CO2.
Senator Sanders. Can you tell me, as I think all of us
know, Oklahoma has been subjected to a record breaking number
of earthquakes. Scientists say that Oklahoma is almost certain
to have more earthquakes with heightened risk of a large quake
probable to endure for a decade and that the cause of this is
fracking. Picking up on Senator Harris's discussion with you,
can you point me to any opinion that you wrote, any enforcement
actions you took against the companies that were injecting
waste fracking water?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, let me say I am very concerned about
the connection between activity in Oklahoma and----
Senator Sanders. And therefore you must have taken action,
I guess. Can you tell me who you fined for doing this, if you
are very concerned?
Mr. Pruitt. The Corporation Commission in Oklahoma is
vested with the jurisdiction, and they have actually acted on
that.
Senator Sanders. And you have made public statements
expressing your deep concern about this.
Mr. Pruitt. We have worked with, through our----
Senator Sanders. You have made public statements. You are
in a State which is seeing a record breaking number of
earthquakes. You are the Attorney General. Obviously, you have
stood up and said you will do everything you can to stop future
earthquakes as a result of fracking.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I have acknowledged that I am
concerned about----
Senator Sanders. Acknowledged that you are concerned. Your
State is having a record number of--well, if that is the kind
of Administrator for the EPA, your State is having a record
breaking number of earthquakes, you acknowledge that you are
concerned. If that is the kind of EPA Administrator you will
be, you are not going to get my vote.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, a UC request. I ask at this
point in the record that we reprint the Wall Street Journal op-
ed piece that was written by two outstanding scientists called
``The Myth of the Climate Change Ninety-Seven Percent.''
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I have a little bit of time left in my
questioning from the first round. I just wanted to talk about
some of the concerns I have with overregulation. Do you have
the same concerns with the overregulation of U.S. manufacturing
over the last 8 years? I believe we have exported manufacturing
jobs overseas, the jobs that go with them in terms of the
manufacturing of those goods to places like China and India
that are going to produce those products in a less
environmentally friendly way. Do you agree with this notion
that this approach harms not just the environment but also our
own U.S. economy?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe, Senator, that it puts us in an
economic disadvantage when we don't hear all voices in the
rulemaking process with respect to these issues, absolutely.
Senator Barrasso. I would also like to submit for the
record an op-ed on CNN by Jeb Bush, saying, ``Scott Pruitt is
ready to turn around the EPA. I cannot think of a person more
suited to lead the Environmental Protection Agency than
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. He has acknowledged
human impact on the climate and supports a robust discussion
about its effects and what the Government should and shouldn't
do to address it.''
And then also submitting for the record a report that I did
as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Clean Air and Nuclear
Safety of this Committee; this was a couple of years ago,
called ``Red Tape Making Americans Sick.'' I put this together
as a physician where we talk about unemployment, long-term
unemployment increases the likelihood of hospital visits,
illnesses, premature deaths in communities due to joblessness;
it hurts children's health, hurts family well being, and quote
scientists who point that the unemployment rate is well
established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality
rates in epidemiological studies performed since the 1980s.
Additionally, there is influencing on mental disorders, on
suicide, alcohol abuse, alcoholism. We also see it with spouse
abuse, drug abuse.
So that the regulations that come out of the EPA that do
cut into employment of hardworking Americans actually
contribute to a deterioration of their health.
I don't know if you have any comments on that or what you
may have seen in Oklahoma at times of unemployment.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, we have seen similar issues in
Oklahoma. We have prescription drug abuse that occurs at rates
that are unprecedented, as other parts of the country, so there
is a similar concern that we have in Oklahoma.
Senator Barrasso. I appreciate your patience, your honesty,
your forthright presentation this morning. We are going to go
to a second round. I now have about 12:45. If it is all right
with you, Ranking Member Carper, we will come back in an hour.
We will take an hour break and come back and resume with a
second round of questioning at 1:45.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. The Committee is in recess.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
[Recess.]
Senator Barrasso. Let us resume the confirmation hearing
for Scott Pruitt to be EPA Administrator.
Attorney General Pruitt, let me start by saying sometimes
you get a chance to sit down over lunch, and you say, I have
been answering questions for over 2 and a half hours. I wish I
had said something differently about something or other. Is
there anything you would like to clarify?
Mr. Pruitt. I have just one point of clarification in
response to Senator Whitehouse's questions this morning about
different environmental enforcement steps we have taken with
respect to the leaky underground storage and double dipping in
our State. I have officially initiated three cases there with
respect to Valero, BP and Conoco. Exxon, and a number of other
cases are still in settlement discussions. Those cases have not
materialized in actual litigation just yet.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you for that clarification.
I have a couple quick questions. In the city of Cheyenne,
Wyoming, it was discovered that trichloroethylene, a chemical
that has been used by the military to degrease the engines of
rocket motors, was seeping into the city's drinking water
supply. The Army Corps of Engineers, which was in charge of a
nearby former Atlas nuclear missile site, refused to even admit
that the site was the cause of the pollution. I fought the
Corps on this to do testing needing to prove what was obvious
to everyone who looked at it. The test results showed a large
plume coming from the Atlas site directly into the city's
wells. The Corps is now addressing the pollution of the city's
water supply. It is now protected through a state of the art
water treatment facility that was installed by the Corps.
Can you perhaps give me an example from when you served as
Oklahoma's State Attorney General where you went after
polluters and held them accountable in that same way?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. As I indicated earlier--I think
this was indicated earlier in this morning's testimony--I
mentioned the case with the hen producing, the CAFO. That was
something we actually initiated. I know there was some question
that Senator Carper raised in that regard. That was both with
respect to Federal and State violations. We actually joined the
State of Texas and the EPA in that enforcement action.
I have submitted for the record, as you know, a list of
cases where we have worked with the Wildlife Commission in
Oklahoma, the DEQ around CERCLA matters and enforcement of our
State laws.
Senator Barrasso. What was troubling to many of us in the
previous Administration was when officials within the Obama
administration went to extraordinary lengths to avoid
disclosing their official written communications under the
Freedom of Information Act. This is the law that allows public
access to Government records. For example, EPA Administrator
Lisa Jackson, at the time, used an EPA e-mail account under the
name of Richard Windsor, Richard Windsor, as opposed to her own
e-mail account.
If confirmed, will you refrain from taking any such action
that makes it difficult or impossible for the public to access
your official written communications under the Freedom of
Information Act?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I indicated in my opening
statement, I really believe that public participation and
transparency in rulemaking is very important. I think that
extends to this matter as well.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
I will reserve the remainder of my time.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
As we discussed before, you are a part, I think, of at
least three lawsuits, Mr. Pruitt; I think one is pending on the
EPA's efforts to reduce mercury emissions from power plants. We
know that 50 percent of our Nation's mercury emissions comes
from power plants, not nuclear plants, but generally fossil
fuel plants, largely coal-fired plants. We know there are more
fish consumption advisories in the U.S. for mercury than I
think all other contaminants combined, including in your own
State of Oklahoma.
If you believe that the EPA should not move forward on the
Mercury and Air Toxics rule, how do States clean up mercury?
What do you think are the health impacts of mercury emissions?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I actually have not stated that I
believe the EPA should not move forward on regulating mercury
or adopting rulemaking in that regard. Our challenge was with
regard to the process that was used in that case and how it was
not complicit with the statutes as defined by Congress.
There is not a statement, nor a belief that I have, that
mercury is something that should not be regulated under section
112 as a hazardous air pollutant, a HAP. As you know, that
section directly deals with health concerns of our citizens.
That is the reason why there is control technology that is very
heightened in that statute, maximum achievable control
technology that is required. So I believe that mercury should
be dealt with and dealt with in a meaningful way by the EPA but
subject to the processes this body has outlined.
Senator Carper. Senator Lamar Alexander and I worked
together for a number of years on Clear Skies legislation. The
George Bush administration had proposed Clear Skies dealing
with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. Several
colleagues of my own, including Senator Alexander, worked on
legislation similar. One of the differences between what we
proposed and the Bush administration's proposal was with
respect to reducing the emissions of mercury. I do not recall
exactly what the Bush proposal called for in terms of emissions
reductions from power plants and others from mercury, but it
was not very aggressive.
I proposed a reduction of 80 percent over a certain number
of years; Senator Alexander said he thought folks could do
better than 80 percent and he proposed a 90 percent reduction
schedule.
We literally had here at this table witnesses from
utilities and one witness from a trade association representing
technology companies that focused on reducing emissions of
harmful substances into our air and into our water. Every
utility representative said, we cannot meet an 80 percent
reduction in mercury. The witness from the trade association
representing the industry which was in business just to try to
reduce emissions like mercury said, not only can the industry
meet those reductions over the stipulated period of time, they
could exceed them.
As it turns out, they exceeded them. They actually did
better than 80 percent, actually did better than 90 percent and
did it more quickly than I think was anticipated.
Is that instructive to you in any way on this question? Is
there any lesson there for you or for us from that experience?
Mr. Pruitt. As I have indicated, Senator, I really believe
that it is important, and it is a partnership between the EPA
and the States. I made reference to the phrase earlier of
national standards and neighborhood solutions. I think that
shows the EPA can be involved and should be involved in setting
standards and setting objective, science-based standards to
improve air quality and protecting the health of our citizens
but also to be a meaningful partner with the States in
implementing those laws.
Senator Carper. Let me just stop you there, please. I like
to say that in adversity lies opportunity. That is not me. That
is Albert Einstein. There is economic advantage to be gained
from cleaning up pollution. We have seen there are companies
that worked on mercury emissions. They make money doing that
and starting that technology around the world. Similarly, there
has been money made from the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, the
American technology reducing emissions from old diesel engines.
Do you ever give any thought to the economic gain, the
economic advantage that can flow from developing that
technology to reduce emissions? I actually think sometimes of
setting regulations, clear regulations.
I will never forget a conversation I had when we were
working on our Clear Skies legislation addressing four
pollutants, meeting with a bunch of utility CEOs, and talking
about how to go forward on that issue. At the end of the
conversation one of the utility CEOs, I think a curmudgeon-like
older fellow. I do not remember where he was from. He said at
the end of the day, here is what you need to do, Congress and
the EPA. You need to tell us what the rules are going to be,
you need to give us some time and flexibility, and you need to
get out of the way. That was what he said. Tell us what the
rules are going to be, give us some flexibility, and get out of
the way.
Do you believe that actually setting standards, whether it
happens to be mercury reductions, CAFE standards, fuel
efficiency requirements, that we are actually setting those
standards, making it clear that we actually provide certainty
and actually open a door for economic production?
Mr. Pruitt. I do, Senator, actually.
Senator Carper. Can you give us an example where you
actually saw that happen, were helpful in making that happen?
Mr. Pruitt. In Oklahoma, this is not widely known because
we are known as an oil and gas State, but in the generation of
electricity in our State, 17 percent of our electricity is
generated through wind. We have had a heavy emphasis on
renewables. That puts us in the top three in the country.
Our Corporation Commission--I actually have obligations to
appear before the Corporation Commission in the setting of
rates. As utility companies are looking at modifying their
facilities to comply with environmental statutes, there is
great discussion about how to do that more economically and to
achieve the air quality objectives we have under EPA and State
mandates. I have been very involved in that process through
that part of my office.
Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you again for being before us. Congratulations on
your nomination.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Capito. I think, as you can tell from this
committee and the country is divided on a lot of the issues in
and around involving what you are endeavoring to headline here
at the EPA. I think understanding one another is extremely
important. No matter how many times I might say the same thing
and somebody else on the other side might say the same thing,
it gives me a greater understanding of where they live and how
they think best way to pursue environmental issues are.
In the crowd that just joined us here after lunch are
several coal miners who traveled all morning, have been waiting
in the hall, and made some new friends in the audience. I want
to thank them for coming because those are the faces of the
issues that I try to address when we are talking about the
different facets of the regulatory environment that we see that
has been put forth over the last several years. This question
is for you all.
In my very first hearing as a United States Senator on this
Committee, we had the Assistant Administrator, Janet McCabe.
She came to testify about the EPA CO2 rules. When I
pressed her about why in the public meetings on the existing
plant rules EPA had not bothered to come to West Virginia or
for that matter any of the other States that most heavily rely
on coal for electricity generation, this is what she said: ``We
tried to. When we were scheduling national level meetings, we
wanted to have those in locations where people were comfortable
coming.''
Mr. Attorney General, I want you to be comfortable coming
anywhere in this country to talk about whether it is Rhode
Island, West Virginia, or Alaska. People need to know you are
listening, that you care, and that you are understanding the
ramifications for the decisions that you make.
So this did not sit very well for me. We had a meeting
after that in Beckley, West Virginia, which is the birthplace
of the Ranking Member. We had Bo Copley there, who was a laid-
off coal miner. He talked about all the hardships of his
friends and neighbors. We had the county commissioner who
talked about the loss of revenue to the county and how it was
impacting the school systems, the real estate values, and the
bankruptcies of all the different coal companies and people who
had been out of work.
I would implore you to commit today to visit West Virginia,
both sides of West Virginia, and talk to our coal miners and
their families to talk about the job and economic impacts and
how we can work together with both sides to try to get to the
intended goal of cleaner air and cleaner water.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I really appreciate you sharing that.
That is the reason I mentioned in my opening statement the
importance of listening and leading. This process I have been a
part of obviously is very new, but I spent time with each of
you, many of you, in individual meetings. Senator Gillibrand
talked about issues important to her around CERCLA. You cited
concerns and issues that are important to you in West Virginia.
I think it is very important, if confirmed as Administrator,
that I spend time responding, learning, and listening to you
and your respective States and trying to be helpful with regard
to the environmental issues you face.
Senator Capito. Thank you. That means a lot.
I would like to get some clarification on a topic has been
coming up about how many times you, as Attorney General, sued
the EPA. You began your statement by saying the rule of law is
very important to you. Then you talked about several of the
cases, and probably most of the cases you brought forward as
not challenging the regulations so much as the process or
whether the rule of law has been overstepped and the boundaries
of the EPA has been the intent of Congress by legislating to
the EPA, has been overstepped. The courts have agreed, in some
cases, that this is the case.
Could you kind of restate that position on the different
actions?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I indicated I think in response to
Senator Sullivan, probably more so than most statutes that are
passed by Congress, this body has recognized the very important
and vibrant role the States play in partnership with the EPA in
implementing and enforcing our environmental statutes. Many of
you talked about that in your offices and how your DEQ works
with the Regional Administrator.
So when we talk about rule of law, as you deal with
mercury, as you deal with CO2, as you deal with
water issues around WOTUS and the definition in those cases, it
is important that you do so consistent with the framework that
has been established by this body and that it is respected.
That gives confidence to the people that are regulating it.
When you have an administrative agency of any type that
acts inconsistent or tries to enlarge its authority, it does
not inspire confidence in those that are regulated. You are
seeing a matter of picking winners and losers and being against
certain things as opposed to protecting people. That rule of
law is not something that is academic in my view. It is not
something that is just legal; I think it is important to
ensuring good outcomes as far as improving our air and
protecting our waters.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, when we left off, we were talking about things
that, to quote the Chairman, ``might place you in a conflict of
interest but have not been disclosed.'' We were talking about
the dark money operation that supports the Republican Attorney
Generals Association.
Before we get back into that, let me ask you this as a
hypothetical. If you had raised significant amounts of money
for the Rule of Law Defense Fund from corporations who will be
subject to EPA's regulation, before EPA, with matters before
EPA, might that place you in a conflict of interest?
Mr. Pruitt. The EPA Ethics Counsel has said--by the way
these are career individuals as you know, Senator. Justina Fugh
is a career person at EPA Ethics. So as they have reviewed
these potential conflicts, I have disclosed all entities I have
been affiliated with.
Senator Whitehouse. I understand that, but I am asking you
if you think it might place you in a conflict of interest,
because we both understand that the ethics rules that the EPA
is enforcing predate Citizens United, predate dark money. They
have said in the letter that they are not even looking at that
because they do not have the authority to. That does not mean
it is not a conflict of interest. It means that the regulatory
authority on Government ethics has not caught up with this
post-Citizens United, dark money world.
My question is, you are a lawyer; you know conflicts of
interest. You have been an Attorney General. Might it be a
conflict of interest within your definition of the term if you
had raised significant amounts of money for this Rule of Law
Defense Fund, and they will have business before EPA with you?
Is that a potential conflict of interest?
Mr. Pruitt. I think if you actually did address those
entities to the degree that I was never an officer of the super
PAC you are referred to earlier, the Liberty 2.0.
Senator Whitehouse. The question was fund raising. That is
the question we do not have any answers on, is what you raised.
Mr. Pruitt. They looked at those entities to determine the
nature of my relationship and indicated those would have to be
evaluated in the future as certain cases arose.
Senator Whitehouse. Right now, the Chairman asked you a
question which is, are there matters that might place you in a
conflict of interest that you have not disclosed. You answered
no.
Might not having raised significant money, let's say $1
million. Let's say you made a call to Devon Energy and said, I
did your letter for you. RAGA needs a lot of money. We have
this dark money thing where we can launder your identity, clean
off it, and the money will go into RAGA. I need $1 million out
of you. Might that not create a conflict of interest for you if
that were the facts?
Mr. Pruitt. Ms. Fugh has indicated in her letter to me--
again, these are career individuals at EPA Ethics--that if
particular matters involving specific parties arise in the
future, it will be evaluated at that point.
Senator Whitehouse. How will they know if you are not
willing to disclose that you raised a hypothetical $1 million
from Devon Energy?
Mr. Pruitt. Those aren't even covered entities under her
letter at this point.
Senator Whitehouse. That is my point. That may very well
create a conflict of interest, mightn't it?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I did not serve in an office or
capacity at that entity in any way.
Senator Whitehouse. That also is not the question. The
question is a very simple one. Did you raise money for the Rule
of Law Defense Fund, front entities that will appear before EPA
as potential defendants in subjects of regulation? If so, how
much, and what did you tell them, and what did you ask? It
seems to me that is not an unusual or----
Mr. Pruitt. The Rule of Law Defense Fund, according to Ms.
Fugh, would need to be a party in the future for that to be an
issue. That is what she has indicated in her letter to me. At
the time--if it should arise in the future, I will seek the
counsel of EPA Ethics and follow the advice of those career
folks to make a decision and recuse if necessary. That is
something I commit to doing.
Senator Whitehouse. At this point, what I deduce from your
statement is that if that set of hypothetical facts were true,
if you had raised $1 million from a big energy corporation to
go through the Rule of Law Defense Fund to support your efforts
at RAGA, that is not something anybody should care about, even
if that corporation is before you at EPA and subject to your
regulation?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is something that if presented in
the future, Justina Fugh, myself, and EPA Ethics would evaluate
that, and I would take the appropriate steps to recuse if they
told me to do so.
Senator Whitehouse. But how would it be presented in the
future if you are not willing to present it now? Why does it
matter in the future and not now?
Mr. Pruitt. If there is a matter or case that comes before
the EPA's authority, that would be something. There is ongoing,
as you know, Senator, Ms. Fugh indicated this in her letter;
there are ongoing obligations that I will have, if confirmed as
Administrator, to bring those kinds of matters to the attention
of EPA Ethics.
Senator Whitehouse. For what it is worth, I think the
Senate has a role in policing this as well, that the whole
purpose of advise and consent and the reason there are these
Government ethics filings is so we can look at this exact
question. The fact they haven't been updated to take into
account dark money and all these big political organizations
that have been created with dark money doesn't take away our
Senate obligation to find out what conflicts of interest you
will bring to the position of Administrator. It gives me very
little comfort that you are not willing to answer those
questions here.
My time has expired. I will continue in another round.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse.
I would like to introduce for the record an article in the
Associated Press in the Seattle Times headlined, ``Ethics
Officials Clear Trump EPA Nominee.'' It says, ``The Office of
Government Ethics on Monday released the personal financial
disclosure report for Scott Pruitt, currently Oklahoma's
Attorney General. The Ethics Office affirmed that Pruitt's
disclosures comply with applicable Federal laws and rules.''
``His finances,'' it says, ``are among the least complicated of
Trump's Cabinet nominees.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really do find it ironic and hypocritical that we are in
a situation that my friends on the other side of the aisle in
this Committee, using their definition of dark money as elected
officials, have literally raised millions of dollars of so-
called dark money.
I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the over-
regulatory burden that the States are facing. Air quality in
Arkansas is among some of the cleanest in the Nation. Despite
the progress that the State has made in looking forward, trying
to do the right thing, the Regional Haze Federal Plan is going
to produce a tremendous economic burden on them.
I think it is a prime example of the haphazard regulatory
atmosphere that we have had in the past with little input from
the States and stakeholders. For years the regulatory
uncertainty has prevented businesses from hiring new employees
and stunting economic growth. In fact information from the
National Small Business Association that was just released
found that more than half of small businesses have held off on
hiring because they don't know what the rules are going to be.
You have mentioned it several times. Can you talk a little
bit more about the impact that you have seen in regard to
regulatory uncertainty in the State of Oklahoma and the
experiences you have had?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, the Visibility Program--we have had
similar challenges in Oklahoma. The Regional Haze Program under
the Clean Air Act, that section of the Clean Air Act is really
quite a bit different than other provisions of the Clean Air
Act. It gives primacy to the States in adopting plans to
increase or improve visibility.
That particular section of the law says by the year 2064 we
should have natural visibility in some key areas across the
country. Oklahoma several years ago, actually in 2010 under a
different Administration, both Governor and Attorney General
submitted a State implementation plan that beat that deadline
by decades. Despite that the EPA came in and rejected that
State implementation plan and forced a Federal implementation
plan on the State, costing the consumers quite a bit of money.
One thing I would add that I didn't talk about earlier is
we talked about cooperative federalism and the importance of
partnership. I have talked about that; you've talked about
that. Under this past Administration the use of Federal
implementation plans, if you combine President Bush, President
Clinton, and President George W. Bush, those three
Administrations combined issued five Federal implementation
plans under the Clean Air Act in three Administrations. This
Administration has issued 56. So it shows an attitude of
indifference, an attitude of trying to be dictatorial in some
respects toward the State's role or manipulative of the State's
role in a way that is, I think, counterproductive for air
quality.
Senator Boozman. When you and fellow Attorney Generals and
other stakeholders sue the Federal Government, whether it is
regional haze or waters of the U.S. or whatever, your goal is
not to do away with the regulation; your goal is to make it
such that the EPA follows their regulatory authority, is that
correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. In that example I provided to you
where the State implementation plan of Oklahoma that was
rejected, we actually satisfied the statutory mandate that was
under the regionalized program. We reached natural visibility a
couple of decades ahead of schedule. The methodology that was
used, the EPA simply disagreed with it. So they used their
authority to displace the State plan costing consumers in the
State hundreds of millions of dollars in increased utility
costs.
Senator Boozman. One of the things I think we have also
seen in the last 8 years is tremendous mission creep on the
part of the EPA where they have gotten into areas where they
don't have the expertise. I think expertise would be the best
word in regard to coming out with some of the things they have
done where they lack jurisdiction and haven't really been in
the past.
Can we count on you to work with the other agencies and
take their expertise into careful consideration as we come out
with the rules and regulations?
Mr. Pruitt. I think interagency cooperation is very, very
important. Obviously with rulemaking, that is something that
occurs and should occur, I think, in a very collaborative way.
So yes, Senator, I believe it is very important as the EPA
conducts its business that it works with the Corps and works
with other agencies at the Federal level to ensure that it is
doing all it can to advance and protect water quality and air
quality and do so within the framework established by Congress.
Senator Boozman. Does it feel like it is the ultimate
decider again when they sometimes do not have the expertise of
the other agency?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator. I agree.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, are you familiar with this piece of medical
equipment?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, an inhaler, it looks like.
Senator Merkley. Yes, an asthma inhaler. Are you familiar
with how many Americans have asthma?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Senator, I am not.
Senator Merkley. It's about 1 out of 10 Americans,
including over 7 million children. It is a pretty significant
health problem across the country. I know I have been fortunate
not to have asthma, but some folks I know who have it and have
asthma attacks feel like they are suffocating. Sometimes they
go into crisis. People go into crisis with asthma. Sometimes
they die from it. It is a terrifying condition.
The EPA, in October 2015, strengthened the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ground level ozone. They strengthened
it to 70 ppb, adjusting it from 75 ppb, because they argued
that it was an attainable standard that would save $3 billion
to $6 billion and in addition, of course, greatly improve the
quality of life by diminishing the amount of asthma attacks and
deaths.
You challenged this. You launched a lawsuit against this
standard. Was the basis of your lawsuit cost benefit analysis,
that they didn't follow their process?
Mr. Pruitt. It was not, Senator. As you know, under the
NAAQS Program, the Whitman decision, cause cannot be considered
in a criteria pollutant.
Senator Merkley. What was the standard you were
challenging?
Mr. Pruitt. It was a records-based challenge that the need
to ratchet down from 75 parts per billion to 70 parts per
billion. As you know, the 75 parts per billion had only been in
operation for 2 years. I think, Senator, it is important from a
priority perspective or the resource perspective of the EPA
when 40 percent of the country is in nonattainment for one of
those criteria pollutants, perhaps there should be focus on how
to meet the level already in statute or already in rule.
Senator Merkley. So you challenged this based on the
attainability standard? I already know that----
Mr. Pruitt. The records-based challenge, yes.
Senator Merkley. Yes, the attainability standard. There
were numerous groups that weighed in and said no, this is
totally attainable. I will submit a list for the record of
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Merkley. The key to this is that by implementing
that, by the time it is implemented, it would save annually
230,000--an estimate of course--asthma attacks among children,
160,000 missed school days, a tremendous number of missed work
days, 630 emergency room visits, and 340 cases of acute
bronchitis. But it also would save, best estimate, 320 to 660
premature deaths.
Here is something that profoundly affects the health of
folks in Oklahoma, folks across the country, folks in my home
State of Oregon, something that expert after expert said is
fully attainable, and you challenged it not on a process issue,
that is not on whether or not there was a cost-benefit analysis
because as you rightly pointed out, cost is not allowed to be a
factor, but whether it was attainable. Why fight so hard on the
side of the oil industry rather than fighting on the side of
the health of the people of Oklahoma?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, let me say to you with respect to the
NAAQS Program, when you look at the nonattainment we have in
this country, it is presently around 40 percent, I think
increasing the nonattainment percentage as opposed to focusing
resources to get nonattainment into attainment is a very
important role of the EPA. We should be taking those marginal
and moderate areas on our map that are in nonattainment and
work with local officials, those counties, through monitoring
and assistance to help move from nonattainment to attainment.
That is a very important goal of the EPA in each of these
criteria.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. You have made your point clear.
I just simply disagree with you. None of these standards, when
they are set, are attained. That is the point. It is an
objective to be worked at over time. There was a strategy that
this might take until 2025 to be fully implemented.
But in the course of laying out that vision and having
folks across the country work toward that vision, you end up
saving a tremendous amount of money and a tremendous amount of
lives. I, as a Senator from Oregon, fighting for the quality of
life of Oregonians, deeply resent folks fighting for oil
industry that are trying to damage the health of my
constituents and Americans across this country. It is a
question of values and valuing profits of companies over the
health of our citizens, it is a character issue, and that is
what these hearings are all about. We are charged with Hamilton
to determine whether or not an individual is of fit character.
To me this is a character issue, valuing profits over people's
health.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Merkley.
I am submitting for the record a report by the National
Black Chamber of Commerce titled Potential Impact of Proposed
EPA Regulations on Low Income Groups and Minorities. The report
goes from 2015 and goes on to say that EPA regulations,
including its regulation on carbon dioxide emissions, would
result in the year 2020 in nearly 200,000 black jobs would be
lost, and more than 300,000 Hispanic jobs would be lost.
Additionally, commensurate with this, there would be median
household income significant decreases throughout the
communities listed in the report.
[The referenced report follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Here we go again
on round two.
I am happy that we have an opportunity to continue
questioning with you, General Pruitt.
Nebraska, much like Oklahoma, is a rural State. In many
cases the closest town or the neighbor can be located miles and
sometimes hours away. In Nebraska one in four jobs is directly
tied to production agriculture. Under this Administration
farmers and ranchers felt especially targeted by the EPA. For
example, in 2011 and 2012 EPA Region 7 conducted aerial
surveillance or flyovers of feed yards in my State. While
flying over my State EPA documented these facilities with
photographs.
This was very disconcerting to me given that many livestock
producers in Nebraska also live and raise their families on
these properties. Not only were these producers not informed
beforehand but the EPA has already delegated the authority to
carry out the Clean Water Act in Nebraska to the State
Department of Environmental Quality.
What will you do to ensure that the EPA sticks to its core
mission? Furthermore, how will you work with the regulated
community, including agriculture, to build trust among
constituencies that have been, I would say, the subject of
bullying tactics by this EPA that we have now?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I indicated in my opening statement
some core themes, if confirmed as Administrator, that I would
seek to comply with. One is public participation, full
participation to ensure that all voices are heard as the EPA
conducts its activities with respect to rulemaking
particularly. I think perhaps what you are referring to is the
lack of that voice or opportunity in the last several years. So
I would work to build a collaborative relationship with those
States. As I have indicated I think the Departments of
Environmental Quality at the State level are valuable partners,
that we need to restore their confidence in the partnership
with the EPA and then seek to listen to the community concerns
in addressing and responding to environmental issues.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
In one of her exit interviews, EPA Administrator Gina
McCarthy has admitted that she has had a bad relationship with
agriculture and with the agriculture community. She listed it
as one of her regrets. I think a bad relationship is an
understatement in this case.
This Administration's EPA philosophy is diametrically
opposed to the idea that farmers can be good stewards of our
land, our water, our environment. Instead, it seemed that this
Administration's EPA wanted to regulate. In some cases, it
looked like they wanted to prevent farming. The agriculture
community is looking forward to a new leadership at the EPA and
working with you.
Mr. Chairman, I have here some statements from agriculture
officials and groups I would like inserted into the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Fischer. If I may, I would close by quoting a few
of those. Jim Reese, the Oklahoma Secretary of Agriculture,
says that ``Scott Pruitt will continue EPA's efforts to protect
our environment but with respect toward landowners, taxpayers,
municipalities, businesses, and Congress.'' That is nice to
hear, sir.
Troy Stowater, Nebraska Cattlemen president, stated,
``Simply put, Mr. Pruitt sees clearly that agriculture and
environment are not opposing terms, but rather they are
complementary. He will work to cultivate the relationships
which will lead to the United States leading in food and fiber
production while improving the environment in which it is
accomplished.'' Again, I am happy to look forward to that
relationship being established again so that all parts of our
society here in this country can participate and receive the
recognition that we are good stewards of the land.
If confirmed, what will be your relationship with the
agriculture community? Are you going to enforce current laws
and will you also respect the limits that we have on those
laws?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, on both counts, Senator, and also the
theme I mentioned in my opening statement that I would
highlight again, is that we need to reject this paradigm that
if you are pro-energy, you are anti-environment or if you are
pro-environment; you are anti-energy. I believe that we, as a
country, have demonstrated that, and we have made great
progress since the 1970s in improving our air quality and
protecting our waters. We can grow an economy and also protect
and be a good steward of our environment. We need to restore
that proper balance and commitment to both as we seek to do our
job.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. As I said earlier, every member
of this Committee believes in clean air and clean water. We
want an environment that is respected where we can manage our
natural resources in a responsible manner. Thank you, sir.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, I want to try to get your understanding. I
heard you say that you wanted to see the regulations and the
laws predictable so that stakeholders know exactly what is
required so there is no confusion.
I want to concentrate on the waters of the U.S. because
ever since the Supreme Court decisions there has been an
uncertainty as to what waters are, in fact, subject to
regulation by the Federal Government and what waters are not.
Do you believe that priority should be set by statute or should
it be set by regulations from the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think that is a great question. If
you look at the series of cases going back to Bayview all the
way to Rapanos, I think you are exactly right. The definition
in the Clean Water Act says that navigable waters are waters of
the United States. That doesn't provide a great deal of clarity
to those that administer the law. I think the EPA taking steps
to provide clarity is important absent Congress responding. I
think that perhaps there is a time and place for Article 1
response, congressional response, to what this body means when
it says navigable waters are waters of the United States.
Senator Cardin. Of course, the Congress, for whatever
reasons, for a long period of time, has not been able to
respond as to what we think the definition of the waters of the
U.S. should be. The Administration did come forward with
proposed regulations which were resisted by many of the
stakeholders that you are aware of.
How would you define the waters of the U.S.? What was wrong
in the regulation? I don't want to go through all the details.
Tell me, where do you think we should regulate? You already
said more than just navigable. How do we define it? How do you
do it? What did the Administration do wrong?
Mr. Pruitt. The challenge up until now with respect to the
current rule, this involves actually an air case, the UARG
case, where Justice Scalia talked about the counterbalance to
Massachusetts v. EPA where the steps taken by the EPA to take
the endangerment finding in 2009 that dealt with title II
mobile sources and then link that over the PSD Program was
something Justice Scalia said transformed the statute and was
not lawful or constitutional.
I think the same thing perhaps is going on with the current
rule. When you are classifying dry creek beds in southeast
Oklahoma that are dry 90 percent of the year as a water of the
United States, that clearly is something that is----
Senator Cardin. The Administration, in its regulation, had
certain exceptions that tried to deal with that. You obviously
didn't think those exceptions were clear enough.
Mr. Pruitt. Actually, the Sixth Circuit said that those
clarifications were not sufficient. I would agree with you,
Senator Cardin, that I believe the clarity around this
definition, the jurisdiction of the EPA, is essential to get
right and to address. As I indicated earlier to some questions,
the Supreme Court has actually taken up a matter from last
Friday; it is more jurisdictional and not merit-based. But the
response by Congress, the response to provide clarity, perhaps
is a very important step to take.
Senator Cardin. I want to pursue this. I think we have
asked questions for the record as to specific provisions you
believe should be in that rule that would be different than the
proposed rule. I would appreciate a response to that so we can
try to see where we are heading in your thought process as to
how you define the regulated waters of the U.S. That would be
helpful to us.
Mr. Pruitt. I think, Senator, the reason that is difficult,
as you know, is because in that process, whatever process that
would take place, that would be rulemaking which means there
would be comment.
Senator Cardin. I understand that. I am not trying to get
every I dotted and every T. I just want to get your philosophy
as to where the waters of the U.S. lines would be drawn and
where you took exception to the regulatory efforts of the Obama
administration.
Let me get to the second point, if I might, on fracking.
Fracking is an interesting area because it is State-regulated
principally. There are very few Federal regulations. My State
has gas deposits that could be subject to fracking.
Pennsylvania, our neighboring State, has done that. There have
been some problems with pollution of water. We know about the
gas releases that have already been talked about. There is some
concern particularly with deep well drilling that when you
inject the fluids back into the cavities, that it may cause
instability. In your State, I know there were a lot of
earthquakes, and there has been talk about whether these
earthquakes were motivated by the fracking activities or not.
How well have the States regulated fracking? Where do you
see the Federal role should be in protecting our environment
from fracking?
Mr. Pruitt. I am glad you mentioned the State role because
we actually have been regulating hydraulic fracturing in
Oklahoma since the late 1940s, early 1950s. It is not a new
process. Horizontal drilling is, but the hydraulic fracturing
process is not. Many States have been very aggressive in
regulating it for a number of decades.
With response to the seismicity issue you are talking
about, the earthquakes in Oklahoma, the Corporation Commission
has actually declared off limits certain drilling activity in
hot spots already. They have taken a very aggressive approach.
I, too, share their concern. I have been in conversation with
the commissioners at the Corporation Commission; that is who
has jurisdiction in this matter. They have taken very
meaningful steps to declare off limits certain drilling
activity to try to see if it will help reduce the number of
earthquakes happening in Oklahoma. It has helped.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have two unanimous consent requests, so don't start my
clock yet.
One is I really believe, and perhaps am overly sensitive to
this, that Mr. Pruitt's integrity has been put into question
with the accusations of contributions to his campaign. I would
like to keep in mind that the oil industry is a huge industry
in my State of Oklahoma. They have things called PACs where the
middle income people will say yes, they support me also.
I think we need to have in the record that there are some
things that are going on that should not be going on. This
affects the Democrats and not the Republicans. There is a guy
named Tom Steyer, I want to put this in the record, who
actually said he was going to put $100 million into campaigns
of individuals talking about global warming and what he
expected. In 2014 he didn't do that. He only put in $75 million
of his own money. In 2016 he was the largest contributor
putting in $86 million of his own money. I am not going to read
this because it does reflect the names of people who are at
this dais.
I ask unanimous consent that this be entered into the
record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. The other thing----
Senator Carper. I'd like to object. I'd like to ask for
clarification from my friend from Oklahoma. The moneys that you
are referring to, were those donations that were disclosed,
fully disclosed?
Senator Inhofe. Oh, yes, I believe they were.
Senator Carper. Then that does not sound like dark money to
me.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
On the last question that Mr. Pruitt concerning the
earthquakes, I'd like to make this a part of the record because
it will surprise you guys that the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission has really focused in on this thing and talked about
it. This is wastewater in disposal wells that we are concerned
with. They clamped down on it, and you are exactly right in
your response to the question except you didn't go far enough.
In 2016 they actually reduced the earthquakes by 31 percent.
So we are doing, in the State of Oklahoma, something that
we have been complimented about, the fact we are taking these
actions. I'd like to make this a part of the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. The other thing I want to bring out, and I
have done this before, but I wasn't going to do it until people
kept talking about the science is settled, the science is
settled, the science is settled. I know people want to believe
that.
I remember so well--every year the U.N. has a big party,
and they invite everyone to come in. I was going to go to
Copenhagen to be the one-man truth squad which I did and went
over there. But during that time, right before I left, I asked
the Administrator of the EPA--the job I believe you are going
to have--Lisa Jackson, I said I have a feeling once I leave
town you are going to come up with an endangerment finding, and
you are going to give your justification for getting involved
in this issue. She smiled so I could tell it was true. I said,
when you do this, it has to be based on science. Tell me the
science that you are going to use for this. She said, well, the
IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Now, as luck would have it--my luck and not theirs--right
after that is when ClimateGate came. That's when it was
disclosed that the individuals, the scientists in IPCC rigged
the numbers and came up with such an outrageous lie in terms of
what causes global warming, all of that. I will just read a
couple of them. One of the physicists in the IPCC said
``ClimateGate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen
before.'' Clive Cooke with the Financial Times said ``The
closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science is
surprising even to me. The stink of intellectual corruption is
overpowering.'' The U.K. Telegraph--that is one of the largest
publications in the UK--said, ``It's the worse scientific
scandal of our generation.'' Nobody talks about that but that
is the science they are talking about. I really believe it is
necessary to have that as a part of this record of this
meeting.
General Pruitt, in 2012, the EPA and the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration issued updated fuel economy
standards that were result of a compromise. That compromise was
between the Obama administration, the automakers, and the State
of California. Part of this deal required a review of these
regulations in 2018 before--these are their words and not
mine--any new standards were put in place. After losing the
election, however, the Obama administration broke the deal by
prematurely issuing new regulations. This decision was made
unexpectedly and well over a year before the EPA said they
would make the determination. This shortened the timeframe and
process, and this is concerning.
Mr. Chairman, I do ask unanimous consent that the previous
EPA timeline for the expected action on the midterm review be
included in the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Attorney General Pruitt, as Administrator,
will you look into this matter to see whether this extreme
action was appropriate or a hasty political decision?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you indicated, the obligation was
to meet the November 2018 midterm review. I think the study
that was completed was finished December 30, and they issued
their findings within 14 days. That time period is something I
am not sure normally happens as far as the time, the velocity
of 14 days, but it merits review. I would review that, yes.
Senator Inhofe. The follow up question would be, would you
commit to sitting down with the Transportation Secretary,
Elaine Chao? I have already talked to her about this,
incidentally. Both will be confirmed, I am convinced, and you
are working to address the impacts of the EPA's decision on
automobile manufacturers and consumers. Will you work with her
on that issue?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. Very good.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Pruitt. I want to jump into one of the areas
that you said is a principal part of one of your achievements.
In your opening statement, you said that as Attorney General
you were confronted with an important water quality issue on
the scenic Illinois River, the high phosphorus levels that were
causing a range of problems that come from the manure
principally from farm animals. You go on to state that this was
a historic agreement to clean up the river. It was in your
opening statement and a number of the other documents that you
provided.
You also described the agreement with Arkansas as an
important agreement to reduce the pollution again that was the
result from poultry growers that was ``occurring as a result of
pollution from poultry growers.'' Are you familiar with this?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, also discharge from municipalities in
northwest Arkansas as well.
Senator Booker. I think that is an important point, yes. I
would like to ask you some questions about this, but I think it
is important. I really dug into this and did some research. I
want to go through with my colleagues what the fact pattern is
that led to this moment where you intervened.
It really starts with a Supreme Court decision way back in
1992, Arkansas v. Oklahoma. I imagine you are familiar with
this Supreme Court decision that resolved the lawsuit between
these two States that held that basically upriver States, such
as Arkansas, must comply with water quality standards adopted
by downriver States and then approved by the EPA. You are
familiar with that?
Mr. Pruitt. I am familiar with the litigation, yes.
Senator Booker. After that Supreme Court decision effective
July 1, 2002, Oklahoma actually did adopt a .037 water quality
standard for phosphorus. Importantly, they gave a decade, 10-
year phase-in period before full compliance was required. Then
in 2003 your predecessor, Drew Edmondson, negotiated an
agreement with Arkansas, which I have read, called the
Statement of Joint Principles and Actions. Mr. Chairman, I'd
like to enter that into the record.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. In 2003, to give more teeth to this--this
goes to what you were saying about municipalities--it created
phosphorus limits for municipal discharges. That 2003 agreement
that I have also read through also states that Oklahoma will
reevaluate the .037 criteria for total phosphorus in Oklahoma's
rivers by 2012.
Then--this is the big part--in accordance with the
instructions, the mandates of the Supreme Court, the EPA gave
its approval to Oklahoma's .037 phosphorus standard. This was
critical because under the Supreme Court decision, now Oklahoma
had a water quality standard approved by the EPA that was now
enforceable against up-States like Arkansas.
Let's fast forward to April 2012. Oklahoma's Water
Resources Board reviewed the best scientific information
available in 2012. It reevaluated and reaffirmed the .037
phosphorus standard.
Mr. Chairman, I want to put in an executive summary of that
review.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Then on June 30th, 2012, the 10-year phase-
in going back to the Supreme Court decision, the actions by
Oklahoma, the 10-year phase-in period was completed in full
compliance and the .037 became required. It became now what was
required by the States.
Just to recap all of this, because it is a lot, 20 years,
Oklahoma's EPA approved a .037 phosphorus standard more than
two decades in the making. It had just been reaffirmed by the
Oklahoma Water Resources Board, and then the 10-year compliance
period phase-in had expired.
So when you said that you had entered into a second
agreement with Arkansas that in your words was a historic
agreement to clean up the river, that would reduce pollution
from poultry growers, this is the question that I have,
sincerely, I pulled that 2013 agreement and read it, and it was
stunning to see that it actually didn't take any steps to
reduce pollution but actually only proposes another unnecessary
study and attempts to suspend compliance that was two decades
in the making with the .037 standard. It suspended compliance
for yet another 3 years of pollution.
Isn't it true that is what the agreement did?
Mr. Pruitt. It isn't, Senator. There was actually no
enforcement of the .037 standard taking place on Arkansas' side
of the border. You referred to the Memorandum of Understanding,
and I actually have the second Statement of Principles here
before me as well, that expired in the 2012-2013 timeframe.
That is what presented my office with the opportunity to go to
Arkansas to ensure that the .037 standard would actually be
enforced from a State law perspective on that side of the
border. That had never taken place in history.
You mentioned the EPA. There was no enforcement authority
that had taken place on that phosphorus level by the EPA.
Oklahoma had it, as you have indicated, as a standard, but it
was not being enforced upstream in Arkansas. That is what the
agreement addresses.
Senator Booker. Mr. Pruitt, I don't have the seniority or
the stature or the grandchildren of Senator Inhofe so I can't
go over my time, but I will say this. In my next round, I will
go back into this, because the documents don't seem consistent
at all with what you are saying. In my next round of
questioning, I'd like to go a little bit deeper into this
historic settlement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Booker.
I would introduce for the record an article that appeared
in the Tulsa World this past January 12th, 2017, going way
beyond the 20 years of that panel, but 33 years. It is by Ed
Fite who served as the agency administrator of the Oklahoma
Scenic Rivers Commission from September 1983 until June 2016,
33 years. His statement in this op-ed that he wrote is, ``I
have found that Pruitt has always done right by our scenic
rivers. For the first time ever, he has gotten the State of
Arkansas, which happens to have parts of the streams we have
designated as scenic rivers originating in and flowing through
their State, to agree to Oklahoma's scenic rivers phosphorus
standard, an incredible environmental accomplishment, the
effect of which cannot be understated.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Pruitt, in August 2016 the EPA Inspector
General found the EPA had failed to follow through with its
commitment to update its 2010 life cycle analysis for corn
ethanol and has also failed to perform its legally required
comprehensive study on the environmental effects of the RFS,
the Renewable Fuel Standard. EPA's information on ethanol's
life cycle emissions is inaccurate, and it is outdated. Today's
best available science shows that blending ethanol into
gasoline can significantly reduce greenhouse gases. However,
the EPA has failed to update its own science with the most
recent, best science that is available and continues to rely on
outdated, inaccurate science when setting national policy,
regulatory biofuels policy.
What are your thoughts on the EPA relying on outdated,
inaccurate science to set Federal regulatory policy?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think it is the obligation of the
EPA in taking steps, rulemaking and otherwise, to ensure that
it has the most up to date, objective scientific data possible.
Senator Rounds. Let me follow up a little bit. The current
EPA process for considering the scientific information
underpinning major regulations, I believe, is flawed, and it is
unbalanced. For example, the Scientific Advisory Board, or the
SAB, is to provide scientific advice to the EPA Administrator
and Congress. But there is a significant lack of geographic
diversity in State, local, and tribal representation on the
SAB.
Can you explain to us what your views are on the agency
science and what you envision as the role of agency science at
the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as you and I talked about in our
meeting, I think it is important to have that geographical
representation better represented, and there are some conflicts
of interest application with the Science Advisory Board that
need to be addressed as well, and also with the Clean Air
Science Advisory Committee, which is a standing committee of
the Science Advisory Board.
Senator Rounds. I have got a chart that shows the
geographic makeup of the 2015 chartered SAB. Of the 54 members
the majority of them come from East or West Coast States. I
also have a chart that shows the number of States that have
government representatives on the SAB.
How would you broaden the geographic scope of SAB members
to make certain that States and various governmental entities
are represented? The one on the left shows the lack of
diversity with regard to the actual members on the board. The
one on the right actually shows that we have a grand total of
two States with representation for State and local units of
government on those boards.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, if confirmed, it is an issue as I have
indicated, and we talked about in your office, that is
important to address to ensure there is confidence that science
is driving rulemaking, that it is objective and tethered to the
rules adopted by the EPA. So this is a very important issue
that needs to be evaluated and discussed to ensure the efficacy
of the science that occurs at the EPA.
Senator Rounds. Would you commit to us that you would make
an effort to see that the Science Advisory Board actually
reflects some fairness with regard to geographic diversity as
well as recognizing the important role that local and regional
governments and State and local governments have in determining
or at least participating in these boards and commissions?
Mr. Pruitt. If confirmed, I look forward to working with
you on that issue.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Let me finish quickly with just one other item. We have
listened a lot to whether you are working on behalf of
industries, whether you are working on behalf of the folks from
Oklahoma, and your role as an administrator with regard to
clean air, water, and so forth. As the Attorney General you
have represented the interests of your State and both your
State's economy and your State's environment. Just because you
are pro-economic development and pro-economic development
growth does not mean that you have to be anti-environment.
Preserving the environment and preserving the economy I don't
believe are mutually exclusive. I don't think you have to
choose between the two.
How would you balance economic growth with making certain
that we have clean air and clean water?
Mr. Pruitt. I think part of it is inherent in the statutes
and the process that the EPA is supposed to conduct. I know
sometimes rulemaking is seen as something that is not terribly
important or something laborious, but the reason rulemaking,
the reason Congress has said you offer notice on a proposed
rule and you take comment is it is needed to make sure all
voices are heard and that there is an informed decision that
regulators are making before they finalize rules, because of
the impact it has on the economy and on the environment in this
instance.
Rulemaking is something we should take seriously and that
we should do so consistent with the framework outlined by
Congress so that all those voices are heard that you are
referring to, Senator, in the rulemaking process.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds.
Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, earlier today you said the EPA has an important
role in regulating carbon dioxide because of the 2007 landmark
Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA. The EPA
Administrators for both President Bush and President Obama made
a decision that carbon pollution poses a danger to America,
otherwise known as the Endangerment Finding.
Will you promise to keep on the books the scientific
finding that carbon pollution poses a danger to the American
public health and welfare?
Mr. Pruitt. Two things, Senator. First, with respect to
Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court said to the EPA that
they had to make a decision.
Senator Markey. That's right.
Mr. Pruitt. To determine whether CO2 posed a
risk, and as you indicated in 2009 they did so. That is the law
of the land, those two cases. There is an obligation of the EPA
Administrator to do his or her job in fulfilling Massachusetts
v. EPA and that endangerment finding from 2009.
Senator Markey. So you will keep that scientific finding on
the books?
Mr. Pruitt. That the endangerment finding is there and
needs to be enforced and respected.
Senator Markey. You will not review that scientific
finding?
Mr. Pruitt. There is nothing that I know that would cause a
review at this point.
Senator Markey. That's very good.
Massachusetts v. EPA made it possible for States like
California and Massachusetts to set higher standards for the
fuel economy of vehicles using their authority under the Clean
Air Act. This is a powerful tool for States to reduce emissions
and address global warming.
As a direct result of the Clean Air Act authority combined
with my 2007 fuel economy law the Obama administration reached
a historic agreement, with the auto industry's support, to
increase fuel economy standards to 54.5 miles per gallon by
2025. Those standards are projected to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil by more than 2 million barrels a day, prevent 6
billion tons of carbon pollution, and save consumers more than
$1.7 trillion at the gas pump because their cars will be so
much more efficient.
Those standards are also unleashing a TESLA revolution,
clean energy vehicles all across the country. Ten thousand
people are going to be employed, for example, in Nevada in this
technology area.
You have said you want States to play a larger role in
environmental regulation. In your 2015 testimony before the
House Science Committee you wrote, ``The EPA was never intended
to be our Nation's front line environmental regulator. The
States were to have regulatory primacy.'' But earlier today,
you wouldn't commit to maintaining California, Massachusetts,
and other States' ability to have regulatory primacy as the
leaders of the effort to protect their own States to do what is
best for global warming in their own States.
So I am going to ask you again, will you support the
statutory right of States to do more to reduce dependence on
foreign oil, reduce global warming, pollution, save money at
the gas pumps, and create tens of thousands, hundreds of
thousands of jobs in the clean car job business?
Mr. Pruitt. I think, Senator, generally, the answer to that
would be yes. But in application with the California waiver
that was discussed earlier, that is an adjudicatory process
that I can't prejudge what would occur there. As you know
previous Administrators have either granted or denied that
based upon a record that was made. I do respect and do believe
that States have a very important role. We've acknowledged
that, or I have acknowledged that today with respect to the
Chesapeake Bay situation, as an example.
I will look at that issue, like others, to make sure that
it is respected but also is consistent with the statutory
framework that you have outlined.
Senator Markey. Do you support the law that says California
has a right to ask for a waiver?
Mr. Pruitt. It is statutory, and it is something the
Administrator has an obligation to do. So yes, I do respect it.
Senator Markey. Do you support the current California
waiver for greenhouse gas standards?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is what would be evaluated. I
think it is very difficult, and we shouldn't prejudge the
outcome in that regard if confirmed as Administrator.
Senator Markey. So you are questioning the current waiver?
You don't think they're entitled to the current waiver?
Mr. Pruitt. The waiver is something that is granted on an
annual basis. The Administrator would be responsible for making
that decision.
Senator Markey. You say you are going to review it?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Markey. When you say review, I hear undo the rights
of the States. I think to a certain extent that is troublesome.
Because obviously, what we have heard all day is how much you
support States' rights when it comes to these issues, but now
when it comes to the right of California, Massachusetts, and
other States to be able to reduce carbon pollution, you are
saying you are going to review that.
My problem really goes to this double standard that is
created that when you sue, from the Oklahoma perspective, from
the oil and gas industry perspective, and you represent
Oklahoma, you say they have a right to do what they want to do
in the State of Oklahoma. When it comes to Massachusetts or
California, and it comes to the question of those States'
wanting to increase their protection of the environment,
protect their victimization from carbon pollution, you say
there you are going to review.
I think the history of the agency in granting reviews that
have been necessary for Massachusetts, for California, and
other States to improve the environment are still valid. The
science hasn't changed, the new clean energy technologies have
not changed, the danger to the public from environmental
exposure to carbon pollution has not changed. So from our
perspective, we are fearful of what a review would actually
result in. From my perspective, I think it is going to lead to
you undoing that right of the States to be able to provide that
protection.
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired. Thank
you, Senator Markey.
I am going to introduce for the record a report from the
National Energy Assistance Directors Association. These are the
State officials who oversee the financial assistance programs
for people to heat their homes.
The report says that when energy prices go up, higher
energy prices result in 24 percent of the recipients who go
without food for at least a day, 37 percent go without medical
or dental care, 34 percent didn't fill a prescription, and 19
percent had someone in their home become sick because the house
was cold due to increased energy costs.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Ernst.
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, Attorney General Pruitt, thank you for being here
today.
I would like to go back to something a colleague, Senator
Duckworth, mentioned earlier today, and that is the point of
obligation. The proposal to change the point of obligation
under the RFS is an example of regulatory change that would
destabilize the policy environment if adopted. What is
interesting with the point of obligation, we have two sides
that normally oppose each other that have actually come
together. Both biofuel producers and the American Petroleum
Institute oppose this change, both groups.
I would like to submit a letter for the record showing the
united opposition to moving the point of obligation. Mr. Chair,
if we could have that entered into the record?
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Ernst. I'd like to revisit this. If you can, yes or
no, as Administrator, will you oppose changes to the point of
obligation?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I indicated in my meeting with you,
and I think in response to Senator Duckworth earlier, there is
a comment period in process now at the EPA about the point of
obligation. I think prejudging the outcome of that process at
this point is unwise.
I can say to you as I said to you in the office, any steps
that I would take as EPA Administrator with respect to any
issues as far as the RNS program, the Monitor Net Program,
point of obligation, all these various issues that we
discussed, the job of the EPA Administrator is to make sure
that the statute is upheld and enforced and not undermined. The
vitality of the RFS Program has been defined by Congress dating
back to 2005. Any steps the EPA Administrator takes need to be
done in such a way to further the objectives of Congress in
that statute, not undermine the objectives of Congress in that
statute.
Senator Ernst. I do appreciate your being objective. I am
sure that Senator Duckworth and I will look forward to
continuing to educate you on those issues. Thank you very much.
I would like to show a chart of the State of Iowa. I would
like to go back to some of Senator Cardin's comments about who
should define what the expanded definition of Waters of the
U.S. is. This is a chart of the State of Iowa. As you can see,
with the expanded definition, as provided by the EPA, 97
percent of the State of Iowa is now considered Waters of the
U.S. If you are in area like mine in southwest Iowa here, I
live in a Water of the U.S. Most of the State is covered by the
waters of the U.S. I bring that up, because in a moment, I am
going to show you another picture of the consequences of the
EPA defining what a Water of the U.S. is.
Last Congress this Committee examined the scope of the
Federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction EPA and the Corps of
Engineers claim today, even without the new WOTUS Rule. The
committee found that EPA and the Corps are already expanding
their jurisdiction using the concepts that they codified in
WOTUS. They are just doing it on a case by case basis.
The jurisdictional claims already being made are very
troubling. For example, the Obama EPA told the public that they
will not regulate puddles. They will not regulate puddles.
However, we learned that the Corps is already regulating
puddles by claiming that a puddle in a gravel parking lot is
``a degraded wetland.'' A degraded wetland.
The Obama EPA also told farmers not to worry about being
regulated because ordinary farming activities have a statutory
exemption. We learned that the Corps of Engineers and the
Department of Justice have decided that plowing is not an
ordinary farming activity. Explain that to my dear deceased
grandfather and my father whose activities in farming include
plowing.
According to the Obama administration, any plowing that
pushes soil into furrows is not an exempt farming activity
because the tops of plowed furrows can dry out. According to a
brief filed by the United States, ``the furrow tops now serve
as small mountain ranges.'' Right there, folks, small mountain
ranges. ``These furrow tops now provide conditions that are not
conducive to growth and development of wetland plant species.
They are mini-uplands.'' This is a picture of these small
mountain ranges from the Government's expert report.
Mr. Pruitt, will you commit to me that if confirmed, EPA
will work with the Corps and DOJ to make sure that Federal
agencies stop trying to regulate ordinary farming practices?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator.
Senator Ernst. Thank you for that very concise answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, I want to come back to this question again. Let
me just tell you, I played second base as well. This is a
hanging curve ball. You can knock this out of the park with a
yes.
Will you commit, yes or no, to reversing the EPA's current
interpretation that available infrastructure should limit the
requirements to blend biofuels into our fuel supply, given that
it runs counter to congressional intent?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't want to take any steps to undermine the
objectives in the statute of the RFS as Administrator of EPA.
Senator Duckworth. Will you commit to opposing any attempts
to move the point of obligation from the farmer, the soybean
producers, the corn producers and biofuel manufacturers away
from them and toward the blenders? Because that would be
counter to congressional intent.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is something, as I have
indicated, that there is an open comment period on that very
issue. If confirmed, I would be dealing with that issue and
need to respond to the comments that have been made as part of
the record. It would be unwise to prejudge that outcome. I can
say to you that any steps that I would take as Administrator
would be in furtherance of the RFS and not to undermine the
RFS.
Senator Duckworth. But the comment period has nothing to do
with congressional intent. Earlier today you said you would
abide by congressional intent. The congressional intent is to
keep that point of obligation with the soybean and corn
producers and the biofuel manufacturers and not to move away
from it, regardless of what the open comment period says. So
you are saying that you are willing, that your answer is no,
because you would be open to moving it away from the soybean
and corn growers, the farmers, toward the blenders if that is
what comes out of the comment period? Is that what you are
saying? That would be against congressional intent, though.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think with respect to congressional
intent and the statute, the intent, as far as the point of
obligation, is not addressed in the statute itself. That is a
decision and the Administrator has been involved in that
process historically. It's been subject to much discussion. In
fact the EPA has dealt with this issue before.
What I am saying to you is, it is the job of the
Administrator to enforce the program, to administer the
program, to ensure that the intent of Congress as far as the
RFS is upheld. I will do that.
To prejudge the outcome of that particular comment period
is something that I can't do and shouldn't do at this point. I
would need to respond to that only after being confirmed and
going through the rest of the process.
Senator Duckworth. You're saying that you would be open to
moving the point of obligation away from the corn and soybean
producers and the ethanol manufacturers, if that is what the
open comment period says? If that is the result, then you would
be open to moving it away from the farmers?
Mr. Pruitt. No. I am saying, Senator, that any actions
taken as Administrator that would jeopardize and endanger the
RFS as intended by Congress, I would not take. That is
different from prejudging an outcome in that particular matter.
Senator Duckworth. But the intent of Congress is to keep
the point of obligation with the producers.
Mr. Pruitt. That's something I am not aware of, Senator.
Senator Duckworth. OK. Let's move on. I am very concerned,
and we will follow up with this in the future.
Let's go to safe drinking water. I sat on the Government
and Oversight Committee in the House where in a bipartisan
manner we explored what happened in Flint, Michigan. I was
actually flabbergasted earlier today when in response to my
colleague, Senator Cardin, on whether you believe there is any
safe level of lead that children can consume, you responded by
saying, ``Senator, that is not something I have reviewed or
know about. I believe there is some concern but I have not
looked into the scientific research on that.''
You are about to become the EPA Administrator. You are
seeking to be the EPA Administrator, and you've not looked into
the issue of lead in our drinking water supply? I think that is
something, especially in the aftermath of Flint, that is a
serious oversight on your part. Have you even studied the Flint
water crisis in preparing for this hearing? Do the names Mary
Gade and Susan Hedman ring a bell to you?
Mr. Pruitt. In the situation in Flint, as I indicated
earlier, the EPA should have acted more expeditiously in
responding to Flint and did not. There was indication at the
regional level that there were concerns, and there was not a
response.
I think that the EPA bears responsibility for what happened
in Flint and would seek to, in the future, avoid those kinds of
situations by being more proactive through the regional
administrators and the States and municipalities in ensuring
the quality of our drinking water.
Senator Duckworth. As EPA Administrator will you commit to
appointing a permanent regional administrator to the Midwest
region based out of Chicago, but they cover Michigan? We have
issues with lead in Galesburg, Illinois, for example. And will
you give them the responsibility and the ability to act
proactively so that they can step in when they see that the
State is not doing its job in protecting the safe water
drinking supply for its citizens?
Mr. Pruitt. As you know, Senator, the answer is yes. The
EPA has emergency order authority to respond to situations like
you describe. I think the EPA should step in, in those
situations in a very meaningful way.
Senator Duckworth. That's good news, because they did not
do it in the case of Flint.
Thank you.
I am out of time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
I would like to introduce for the record an article from
The Oklahoman by Rick Green that says J.D. Strong, Director of
the State Wildlife Conservation Department, says of Attorney
General Pruitt, ``Attorney General Pruitt has been a really
good partner and ally in making sure we have adequate
protections in place for the quality and quantity of water,''
said Strong, who previously led the Oklahoma Water Resources
Board and was State Secretary of the Environment. ``I have
never seen him put us in a position where we had to compromise
anything to protect the waters of Oklahoma.''
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I was the Congressman in the district with the
Arkansas-Oklahoma Illinois River situation. I was elected in a
special election in 2001 and inherited this. This had been
going on for about 10 years. In 2001, from that time on until
recently, we probably worked on this, it seems like every week.
What happened was in 2003 the EPA came out and said the
standard was such that by 2013 the river needed to have an
attainment of .037 standard of phosphorus. Arkansas worked
very, very hard, changed out all of its treatment plants in
that area. That is one of the fastest growing areas in the
country. The ratepayers paid for all of that, hauled out
chicken litter and all those kinds of things, and made a
dramatic improvement in the attainment.
The problem was, though, Arkansas, and you mentioned, my
good friend, Senator Booker, and he is a good friend, mentioned
a lot about Oklahoma this and that. Arkansas never agreed to
any of that. So they were going forward but they felt they
could not attain the .037 standard because the first national
river is in Arkansas, the Buffalo River, and it was not at
.037, it is pristine.
In good faith in 2005, I believe, the Attorney General in
Oklahoma sued Arkansas. You can correct me if I am wrong on
some of these things. In 2010, in that case, all of the stuff
was put in place, but the Federal judges never ruled on it so
it was open.
Fast forward, 2013 is arriving. Arkansas does still not
agree that the .037 standard is the appropriate one, so they
were squaring off getting ready to sue each other again.
Attorney General Pruitt and Attorney General McDaniel, a
Democrat in my State, got together and said, let's not waste a
ton of money with lawyers; let's use science and things like
this to figure this out.
They chose a neutral site, Baylor University, which has an
excellent water department. They came in and did a study and
came back and said .037 is the standard. Right now the States
are living with that. It was a tremendous effort, took a long
time, and it was a very, very difficult situation. So I applaud
you.
I want to put in the record a letter from our former
Attorney General McDaniel that again outlines this. It was
very, very complimentary of the Attorney General.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced letter follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Let me quote one of the final paragraphs: ``Recent press
accounts regarding these efforts unfairly mischaracterize the
work that was done by General Pruitt and his team. He was a
staunch defender of sound science and good policy as
appropriate tools to protect the environment of the State. I
saw firsthand how General Pruitt was able to bridge political
divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome
that was heralded by most credible observers as both positive
and historic.''
Again, as someone who was intimately involved in that, more
involved than I wanted to be in things, there really was a
heroic effort by yourself and the people in Arkansas trying to
resolve a difficult situation.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
That's really all I have, Mr. Chair.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Boozman.
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and General
Pruitt.
I wanted to focus on--a number of us talked earlier about
the frustrations that the American people have with the EPA. We
talked about anger; Senator Ernst talked about fear. I believe
it extends to a couple reasons underlying that.
One is the agency currently feels that it is empowered to
regulate literally every nook and cranny of American life.
Related to that, they seem to have very little respect for the
rule of law. Let me touch on those.
Senator Ernst talked about the WOTUS rule. Literally the
EPA has claimed the ability to regulate puddles. As a State
with--pre-WOTUS by the way--65 percent of America's wetlands in
Alaska, we have very significant concerns about this.
I want to actually address an earlier comment by Senator
Whitehouse where he said there is nothing in your record that
shows that you have the background to help America's fishing
industry. Well, I couldn't disagree more with Senator
Whitehouse, who is a friend and colleague. My State has a
fishing industry like Rhode Island's. It is a little bigger.
Sixty percent of all the seafood that is----
Senator Whitehouse. It's considerably bigger.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Chairman, would you please acknowledge that for the
record?
Senator Barrasso. With no objection.
Senator Sullivan. Almost 60 percent of all seafood
harvested in the United States comes from the waters of Alaska,
and it is considered the best, most sustainable, best managed
from an environmental standpoint, fishery in the world.
Do you know what the No. 1 issue is, the top issue of the
fishermen of Alaska is? It is EPA overreach. Let me give you a
specific example.
This is a regulation, 200 pages, on America's fishermen,
the ultimate small businessmen and women. This actually
requires that every fisherman in Alaska, commercial fisherman,
requires a discharge permit to literally hose off the deck of a
ship. Think about that.
If you are gutting fish and fish guts or pieces of a fish
fall on the deck of your ship, and you hose it down, fish back
into the water of the oceans, you need a permit, 200 pages.
This is the kind of thing where the trust between Americans and
the EPA has eroded so much because of these kinds of issues.
If confirmed, will you work with me and others on this
Committee to make sure that these kinds of regulations are
balancing environmental needs with jobs that are so important?
You mentioned it as a cost. Will you work with us on that, and
would you care to comment on a regulation like this, fish back
into the ocean requiring a permit? Congress, by the way, has
extended this twice, the implementation of this, so there is
bipartisan agreement that we need to do something about this
overreach. Would you care to comment on this?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think it is exemplary of a lack of
priority. We have many, like I indicated earlier, 40 percent of
our country is in nonattainment under the NAAQS Program. We
have over 1,300 CERCLA sites in this country that need
attention to move those areas into remediation and restore
those areas for environmental related issues. I think in some
respects what you cite there is just missed priorities, trying
to focus on something like that as opposed to focusing on these
other areas that will really improve tangibly the environmental
protections for people across the country.
Senator Sullivan. Let me talk next about the rule of law. I
am glad you emphasized it as a priority. I believe it is one of
the principal reasons again why, again, there is such a lack of
trust between the American people and the EPA. But it is not
just a Republican issue. As a matter of fact, there are a
number of examples where this is viewed as a bipartisan issue
that we need to address. You may have seen with regard to the
Clean Power Plan, Laurence Tribe, not known as a strong staunch
Republican, Harvard law professor, stated, ``The EPA is
attempting to exercise lawmaking that belongs to the Congress
and judicial power that belongs to the Federal courts. EPA is
attempting an unconstitutional trifecta usurping the
prerogatives of the States, Congress, and the Federal courts
all at once with its Clean Power Plan.'' Then he stated,
``Burning the Constitution should not become part of our
national energy policy.''
You've been involved in some of these cases, the Clean
Power Plan, the Waters of the U.S. In both of these cases,
courts have stayed the EPA's rule. Why do you think the courts
have done that? Do you think the rule of law that has been
ignored by the EPA is something that if confirmed, you will
work on to regain the trust between the EPA and the American
people?
Mr. Pruitt. As I indicated earlier, Senator, I think at
times perhaps there those in law and the courts that look at
rule of law as something that is academic and technical. But it
is real. It affects people in very real ways. When you have
agencies of any type that act inconsistent with the statutory
authority given to them by Congress, it creates the kind of
uncertainty that you are talking about. People don't know what
is expected of them, and paralysis happens.
And so rule of law is important to economic development, it
is important to send messages of certainty, it is important so
that people can plan and allocate resources. There are many
laws that people look at and say, I don't really like that. So
long as they know what is expected of them, they can plan and
allocate resources to comply. I think that is what is important
about rule of law.
Senator Sullivan. And as one of the lead litigators on the
WOTUS rule and the Clean Power Plan and the fact that the
Supreme Court and the Sixth Circuit have put stays on those
rules, what do you think that indicates the courts' view is of
those two rules issued by the EPA at this moment?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, it is unprecedented for the Supreme Court
to have done what they did in the Clean Power Plan.
Senator Sullivan. Never happened in the history----
Mr. Pruitt. Never happened in the history of jurisprudence
before the U.S. Supreme Court. That says a lot.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, I yield to somebody ahead of
me if they would yield back to me for the next question.
Senator Barrasso. That would be fine. I have some time that
I haven't gotten to yet in this second round. We will go
shortly to a third round.
I wanted to talk a little about the Mercury Rule that the
Supreme Court overturned. They overturned the EPA's Mercury
Rule, finding that the EPA did not appropriately consider the
costs of the rule. Noting that between the time that the rule
is issued and the Supreme Court decision 3 years passed, the
EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy was on a television show a
couple days before the Supreme Court made its ruling, and they
said, well, what if the Supreme Court says you are wrong? And
essentially, she said, well, the majority of the power plants
have already decided and invested in a path, because it is been
3 years, to achieve compliance with the Mercury Air Toxic
Standards. In other words, she had already gotten her result,
even though what she had done was found by the courts to be
illegal.
So I would ask you your thoughts on her statement, and do
you believe that her statement shows respect for the rule of
law?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, this is speculation to a certain
degree, and one of my favorite philosophers is Yogi Berra, and
he said, ``Predictions are pretty tough, particularly about the
future.'' So I don't want to be too speculative here. But when
you look at the response of the Supreme Court and the Clean
Power Plan, I think largely the reason they acted in an
unprecedented way is because of what you just addressed, Mr.
Chairman, that in response to the Michigan and the EPA case,
there were some comments made that they had achieved the
outcome despite the fact that it acted inconsistent with the
framework under the law.
So I think rule of law is something, as I indicated to
Senator Sullivan, it is not something that is academic. I think
it is meaningful. It inspires confidence in those that are
regulated. It gives them assurance that regulators are acting
consistent with their authority, and it allows them to plan and
allocate resources to meet the standards and meet the
objectives that Congress and regulators established.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Moran.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
General, you can see by where I sit on the dais that I
haven't been in the Senate a terribly long time. But one of my
causes upon my arrival and the discovery of how the Senate
works is to try to work with my colleagues to reassert
congressional authority. In my view there is a number of ways
we could do that. One, Congress could quit passing huge pieces
of legislation and delegating authorities to agencies and
departments. Another one that we could pursue--and I hope we
will this year--is an appropriations process, by which we have
the opportunity to influence decisions made at the
Environmental Protection Agency and every other agency and
department.
One of the things--when we do that by developing a
relationship with an agency head, knowing that, and I guess
part of that is that Members of Congress need to have greater
levels of expertise on the subject matter of their
jurisdiction. One of the subcommittee I chair is in the
Commerce Committee. It has jurisdiction over the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Environmental
Protection Agency just last week finalized its greenhouse gas
standards for light duty cars and trucks for 2022 to 2025.
Now, the law says that it is to coordinate that effort with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. And that
agency is still developing its own process to determine
appropriate fuel standards. I raise this as an example of
where, once again, two agencies instructed by Congress to work
together to find a solution or the right answer to an issue
ignore the law. I assume you would assure me or members of this
Committee that the Environmental Protection Agency, to the best
of your ability, will obey the law.
But I also assume that you are willing to assure me that
when directed by the law to cooperate with other agencies, to
have the input of an agency that our subcommittee has
jurisdiction over, as the person in the Senate responsible for
these issues, I go to the agency that I have the most influence
over, and they say, well, EPA's already done its thing. I
assume we can bring those kinds of practices to an end.
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely, Senator. I think that interagency
discussion, that collaboration to ensure that there is
meaningful discussion, review of action, takes place. I want to
speak generally to your delegation reference, because I do
think that that is a very important issue that you raise. I
think a lot of times what has happened is that Congress has
spoken in very general ways, I will not say vague, but
approaching vagueness, and giving carte blanche or substantial
authority to agencies without providing the kind of framework
that is necessary for them to make their decision.
From a separation of powers issue, I think that is very
important. I think it is important for Congress, article 1, to
exercise its authority and to give the direction to these
agencies on how they should conduct their business. Senator
Cardin, in his comments and questions earlier about the Waters
of the United States Rule, I think that is a problem,
presently, largely because the definition of Waters of the
United States in the statute is so vague and so general, it
creates uncertainty.
So I think making sure that Congress performs its role and
the executive branch performs its role in enforcing laws, and
we try to do less delegation and respect separation of powers,
is very, very important.
Senator Moran. I appreciate your reassurance of how you
would conduct, if confirmed, the agency. It also is a
reflection upon the need for Congress to do its job better.
Perhaps, I guess you'd have nothing to do with that. But for me
and my colleagues, we need to be much more precise and clear in
legislation and much more likely to deal in smaller bite-size
pieces. Too often I think Congress is interested, and I don't
want to be derogatory to any of my colleagues, but too often we
look for the headline, we solved a problem, and yet we complain
about what an agency's decisions are, and we have given them so
much authority they have the ability to make what I would
consider, some of us may consider a bad decision.
Mr. Pruitt. And there are important steps that have been
taken. We've mentioned TSCA this morning, where you've done
just that, in his past year. So I think that is a very
important item that you raise, Senator.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Moran.
We'll now move to a third round of questions.
Attorney General Pruitt, you just mentioned TSCA. You sent
a letter to this Committee in April 2015 supporting the Frank
Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act. In fact, the timing of your
letter was less than a month after the bill was introduced, and
you were the first Attorney General of the United States to
support the bill.
The bill ultimately received overwhelming bipartisan
support in Congress. It would be your job to implement the
bipartisan reforms and ensure we have consistent regulation
throughout the country. Would you discuss the plans that you
might have to implement this legislation, and will you commit
to implementing the legislation in a timely manner?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, and Mr. Chairman, yes. I think in
response to obligations of the EPA, this body has put timelines
before the EPA to carry out certain rulemaking, the
Prioritization Rule, the Risk Evaluation Rule, fees that need
to be established, all those are mid-term in 2017. And I think
it is a matter of the EPA Administrator making that a priority
at the agency.
I also think that in response to Senator Gillibrand
earlier, and others have raised this too, there are certain,
like PFOA, that need to be addressed in evaluating that listing
under TSCA or perhaps the Safe Drinking Water Act as well. So I
think there are specific actions that need to be taken but also
the rulemaking process and the deadlines be adhered to.
Senator Barrasso. You made reference to, and I did in my
opening statements as well, to Flint. There was give and take
on Flint a little earlier. The other thing I brought up was the
Gold Key Mine spill in Colorado, an environmental disaster
caused by the EPA. Last Friday, the EPA announced that it has
denied all claims for the $1.2 billion in lost income, loss of
use of property and damage to the businesses and the property
suffered by 73 tribes, by land owners, local businesses, local
governments as a result of the spill. The EPA's excuse was its
legal interpretation of the Federal Tort Claims Act. According
to the EPA, if a Federal agency hurts someone through a
discretionary action, then the Federal Tort Claims Act does not
apply. This doesn't sound right to me.
So if confirmed, will you commit that you will review that
decision and use whatever authority is available to you under
the law to help the people who have been harmed by the EPA's
negligence?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
A question. Mr. Chairman, I know you did not use, when we
started this round of questioning, you did not use like 2
minutes and 30 seconds of your time. When you comment like you
have just commented, are you drawing down on that 2 minutes and
30 seconds?
Senator Barrasso. I am now in the third round of
questioning, yes, sir. And I would reflect that looking back at
EPA nomination hearing processes, when Gina McCarthy was
nominated, came to this Committee, Chairman Barbara Boxer, two
rounds, first round 5 minutes, second round, 2 minutes. We are
now in a third round of 5 minutes, so I think that the Chairman
has tried to listen to our discussions with other members to
make sure that all the Democrats and every member had a chance
to have as many questions as possible.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I want to go back to something
you said about one of our colleagues with respect to EPA
actually visiting States and participating in meetings in those
States with respect to the Clean Power Plan. I think it was
said that West Virginia, my native State, native State of my
friend from West Virginia, that was not visited. We have heard
since then from Joe Goffman, who was counsel to John McCain,
EPA Assistant Administrator for Air, as you may know, he said
he personally participated in meetings on the Clean Power Plan
in West Virginia, also in Kentucky, Texas, Pennsylvania,
Nevada, Washington, California, Wyoming, North Dakota,
Colorado, Illinois, and I think Nebraska.
I wrote a letter to Gina McCarthy on January 11th. You may
recall, Mr. Pruitt, I wrote a letter to you on December 28th,
and posed a series of questions to you and asked for your
responses by January 9th. I have yet to receive those
responses. I wrote a letter to her on January 11th, again, to
Gina McCarthy and to Assistant Secretary Darcy of the
Department of the Army. I wrote because we were getting and
hearing on our office a whole list of assertions about the
Waters of the U.S. I think this is maybe instructive for all of
us. The things that we were hearing, people were calling in, in
Delaware. It led us to ask these questions.
One of the questions was, are the EPA and the Corps
currently implementing a new Clean Water Rule? The assertion
was that indeed, that has been happening. So we asked, is that
really the case. And 2 days later, 2 days later, we received a
response, no, the agencies are not now implementing the new
Clean Water Rule. Implementation of the new rule is temporarily
stayed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. September 2015,
the agencies immediately directed their field offices to stop
using the new rule, and instead resume implementing regulations
interpreting the guidance prior to the new rule. That was one
of the questions we asked.
We also asked, because we were hearing assertions
otherwise, are the EPA and the Corps currently pursuing
enforcement actions pursuant to the new Clean Water Rule? And
we got on the same date, January 13th, this response, that said
no, the agencies are not pursuing any enforcement actions
pursuant to the new Clean Water Rule and will not enforce this
rule unless and until the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals stay
is lifted.
The next question we asked, because we were hearing
assertions otherwise, does anything in the Clean Water Rule
revoke or otherwise modify the Clean Water Act's statutory or
regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching? Response, 2
days later, January 13th, was no, the Clean Water Rule makes
absolutely--absolutely no changes to normal farming, ranching,
and forestry exemptions established under the Clean Water Act
in implementing regulations.
So question No. 4, some have claimed that landowners will
no longer be able to rely on the Clean Water Act's statutory
and regulatory exemptions for farming and ranching, should the
Clean Water Rule go into effect, because while the statute and
regulations remain unchanged, the agency has narrowed those
exemptions in practice through the actions in the field. Is
that true? And the answer is, not surprisingly, the assertion
that the agencies have no application in statutory and
regulatory exemptions for farming, ranching, and forestry is
untrue. The agencies have taken no steps intended to reduce the
scope of the exemptions. We have not observed changes by field
offices in the way they interpret or implement these
exemptions. In fact the Corps has re-emphasized publicly that
these exemptions are self-implementing. Farmers, ranchers, and
foresters are not required to get approval from the agencies
prior to using the exemptions.
I raise this because sometimes what people assert to be
true, sometimes it is over the Internet, sometimes it is on
television, sometimes it is on the radio, newspapers.
Assertions are made. And in this case there is a whole long
list of assertions that were made, and none of them were true.
They are distortions, untruths about what the EPA is doing with
respect to a regulation that was stayed.
I would ask to, for the record, Mr. Chairman, to be able to
submit for the record the questions that we posed to EPA on
January 11th and also the responses that we have received.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you.
I'd like to look at a chart, if you don't mind. This is a
report card that lists 17 counties. How many counties do you
have in Oklahoma?
Mr. Pruitt. Seven--seventy-seven.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pruitt. Mr. Chairman, can I refer to Senator Inhofe for
these questions?
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I was watching; his lips are barely moving
as you speak.
Thank you.
At the same time you've been suing EPA on its ozone
standards, all the counties in Oklahoma for which data is
collected earned an F from the American Lung Association for
not meeting ozone health standards. You have 60 counties that
the American Lung Association does not have data on the
progress made or not made with respect to ozone. These are the
ones we have information on, 17. Seventeen counties from Adair
to Tulsa. You live in Tulsa, I expect? Tulsa County. They all
got Fs. This is last year, 2016. My question to you is, what
did you do about it? What did you do about it before or since?
Sometimes people may not believe what we say, but they will
believe what we do. What have you done about this?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, two things. I really believe there
needs to be a tremendous effort made by counties across this
country to move nonattainment into attainment. Over 40 percent
of the country--presently 40 percent of the country
approximately is in nonattainment. There needs to be great
prioritization with EPA and local officials in achieving
attainment.
Senator Carper. But that wasn't my question, Mr. Pruitt.
What did you do about it? You have 17 counties for which we
have data from last year. What did you do about it? Before or
since? That's what I am asking you.
Mr. Pruitt. As indicated in our meeting individually, the
primary enforcement responsibility in Oklahoma with respect to
air quality permits and the rest is the Department of
Environmental Quality. And there have been actions taken by
DEQ, and they continually work with those counties to reach
attainment. And we provide general counsel advice to that
agency in the performance of their role.
Senator Carper. I am not the Attorney General of Delaware,
never had any intention to be, but if 17 of our counties in
Delaware--we only have 3--if 17 of them or all 3 of them got
Fs, I promise you, I would do something about it.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Congress recently passed a bipartisan bill--many of us up
here supported it, I know I did--as part of the Water
Infrastructure Bill to allow States to lead implementation and
enforcement of EPA's coal ash rule through the State-based
permit program. That rule is already in effect, and it is
important that the EPA move quickly on this. If you are
confirmed, are you going to get right on this thing?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. All right.
Sue and settle, we all know what that is, we know that
groups, maybe some of the environmentalist extremist groups
will file lawsuits against the EPA. The EPA, instead of
defending against the lawsuits, will enter into a resolution
behind closed doors without any public input or participation.
These settlements result in new sets of legally binding
priorities and duties for the EPA that achieve demands of
special interests. Can you share your thoughts on sue and
settle?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, this issue came up earlier. And it is
a concern. Because it is regulation through litigation. There
is a place for consent decrees in our litigation system, but to
use a consent decree to bypass Congress, bypass the regulatory
requirements that you've placed upon those agencies, to engage
in rulemaking through litigation is something I think should
not occur.
Senator Inhofe. And that is the part that did not come up
earlier. I appreciate that very much.
Last, the cost of regulations. As you know the Supreme
Court overturned EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Rule in 2015
because the EPA failed to--ignored the fact that the cost was
$9.6 billion annually of the rule. Now, in fact, the EPA's
regularly issued rules over the past 8 years are very costly
for our industries and our job creators. According to the CRS,
now, the CRS, when they make an evaluation, are much more
conservative. The figure is always a very conservative figure.
But they said the Clean Power Plan would be at least $5 billion
to $8 billion a year. The figures I have heard on that are far
greater because it wouldn't be that much different than the old
systems they tried to do through legislation.
The methane standards on oil and gas facilities, $315
million a year. The new ozone standards, $1.4 billion. The 2015
coal ash standards, $587 million a year. And the 2011 sulfur
dioxide standards, $1.5 billion a year. Now, when you hear
this, all this money is being spent on compliance costs by our
job creators, people out there that are working for a living,
and they are hiring people. What are your thoughts, and what do
you believe should be the role of the costs of EPA's
decisionmaking?
Mr. Pruitt. I think it is very important in the rulemaking
process, Senator. And the Supreme Court and courts have
recognized that very important factor.
I mentioned earlier the case that we were involved in in
Oklahoma involving the regional haze program. That was an
example where Oklahoma actually complied and met and satisfied
the requirements under the statute and the rule. But the steps
that were taken were displaced by the EPA, adding hundreds of
millions of dollars of cost to consumers in the generation of
electricity. So costs are very important. We need to make sure
that they are considered. In certain areas of the statute, as I
indicated earlier, they can't be, under the title I NAAQS
program. But in that case that you are referring to, it is an
obligation of the EPA to actually engage in a cost-benefit
analysis, make a record before it made its decision.
Senator Inhofe. Do you think that the laws that are in the
books right now adequately handle this situation?
Mr. Pruitt. I do, largely, Senator. I think it is mostly an
application issue that the agency and the regulator is doing
its job under the statute as provided by Congress.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. And presumably, Mr. Pruitt, it goes
without saying that if the EPA is going to consider cost to the
industry of confirming to pollution guidelines it should also
consider benefits to the public from cleaner air, cleaner water
and the results of that compliance, right?
Mr. Pruitt. It should, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. So we have been talking about
fundraising done by you for the rule of law defense fund during
the time when you were both a board member and for a full year
the chairman of the Rule of Law Defense Fund and the fact that
we have exactly zero information in this Committee about that
fundraising. We also have zero--and let me ask unanimous
consent for the page from the filing that discloses that he was
in fact a member of the board of directors and chairman of the
Rule of Law Defense Fund.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. We also have a meeting agenda from the
Republican Attorney Generals Association during the time that
you were executive committee member of the Republican Attorney
Generals Association meeting at the Greenbrier, which I will
stipulate to my friend from West Virginia is a lovely place to
go. The agenda, which I would like to take this page of and put
into the record, mentions a private meeting with Murray Energy.
It mentions a private meeting with Southern Company. It
mentions a private meeting with the American Fuel Petrochemical
Manufacturers. If you will show the graphic, these are all the
same groups that I have been asking about in terms of your
fundraising for the Rule of Law Defense Fund. And there is
Murray Energy, and there is Southern Company, and I am sure the
American Fuel Petrochemical Manufacturers represent a lot of
the others.
As I understand it, we know nothing, no minutes, no
statements, no reports about what took place in those meetings
that are described as private meetings on a sheet that is
stamped confidential. Correct? We know nothing about the
content of those meetings?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I did not generate the document. I
know nothing about how that document got generated or what----
Senator Whitehouse. Are you denying that those private
meetings took place?
Mr. Pruitt. No, Senator. I just didn't generate the
document and don't know about the content, other than what you
have represented.
Senator Whitehouse. OK, and we don't know. And because you
were on the executive committee of RAGA, that is information
that we could get, right? I mean, it is available, if there
were minutes or reports out of those meetings, notes taken. But
we don't have them, correct?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that would be a request made to the
Republican Attorney Generals Association. I might add, the
Republican Attorney Generals Association, there is a Democrat
Attorney Generals Association as well.
[Simultaneous conversations.]
Senator Whitehouse. I am not faulting that. I am talking
about private meetings at the time that you were on the
executive committee with some of the really, really big
polluters with whom you have been very closely politically
associated.
Mr. Pruitt. There is a Conference, if I may, Senator, of
Western Attorneys General. There is a national association. And
they talk about water.
Senator Whitehouse. I know.
Mr. Pruitt. And there are meetings that take place at each
of those as well.
Senator Whitehouse. The rest of the Attorney Generals avoid
that because we don't want to talk about water.
Let's talk about FOIA. You have had a conversation with the
Chairman about FOIA. As I understand it, there is a FOIA
request to the Oklahoma Attorney General's office, to your
office, for e-mails between your office and Devon Energy and
Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity, the Koch front
group, and Murray Energy and the American Petroleum Institute.
And the information that I have is that that Open Records Act
request was filed more than 740 days ago. More than 2 years
ago. That in response to it, your office has conceded that
there are 3,000 responsive documents. Three thousand e-mails
and other documents between your office and these companies.
And that in 740 days, exactly zero of those documents have been
produced.
Is that acceptable turnaround on a FOIA request, and should
we not be concerned that your office is not complying with a
FOIA request that relates so specifically to so many of these
companies that are going to be before you as EPA Administrator
if you are confirmed?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I actually have a general counsel and
an administrator in my office that are dedicated to performing
or providing responses to Open Records requests.
Senator Whitehouse. Not very dedicated, if it takes 740
days. That is still zero.
Mr. Pruitt. But I am not involved in that process. That is
handled independently by the administrator and that general
counsel in responding. So I can't speak to the timeline and why
it is taking that length of time. But I will tell you that our
office works--we actually go across the State of Oklahoma in
training with officials locally in compliance with FOIA and
Open Records laws.
[Simultaneous conversations.]
Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Your own training, because
it doesn't seem to be sticking very well.
Mr. Pruitt. The representation you made about the timeline,
I don't know.
Senator Whitehouse. Given how many of these groups have
important financial interests before the EPA, do you not think
that 3,000 e-mails back and forth between you and your office
and them are relevant to potential conflict of interest as an
administrator and should be before us as we consider this?
Mr. Pruitt. Again, I think the EPA ethics counsel has put
out a very clear process with respect to covered entities, as
we described it earlier, and on particular matters and specific
cases, I will follow the advice of that EPA career person,
ethics, to make sure that there----
[Simultaneous conversations.]
Senator Whitehouse. You keep saying that.
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Whitehouse. Will you let me finish my sentence?
Senator Barrasso. Please do.
Senator Whitehouse. The problem with that is that if you
haven't disclosed any of this information, then the EPA ethics
counsel would have no idea to even look. They would have no
idea what the risks are. You can't say, nobody can look at
whether I did this, but by the way, they're going to look at
it. It just doesn't add up. Sorry about going over my time.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
I would like to point out, we had a report cared that was
just brought up. And I would like to introduce for the record a
letter from each of the five Members of Congress from the State
of Oklahoma with their steadfast support for Scott Pruitt,
saying, we are proud of his service to our State and are very
confident that he will do a superb job serving our Nation and
our citizens in this new role.
Also as a follow up for the first round of questions, there
was a dispute about a lawsuit against Mahard Egg Firm and who
it was filed by. I have here the complaint in the case, and it
was filed May 18th, 2011, and if you read it, it says, in the
State of Oklahoma, by and through Attorney General Scott
Pruitt. So you are the one that filed the suit, along with the
Attorney General of Texas against Mahard Egg Firm. This will be
submitted for the record as well.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Since the Ranking Member mentioned that Mr. Joe Goffman had
visited, I call to the attention in beseeching you that when
you are successfully the Administrator at the EPA that you will
listen to everybody and come to States that are most directly
affected. He mentioned that the Associate Assistant
Administrator had made the long list that he had said.
I would like to point out a clarification. The EPA
announced on September 30th, a day I will remember because that
is the birthday of my youngest child, they announced where they
were going to be going for their listening sessions. They went
to Boston, they went to New York City, they went to
Philadelphia, they went to Atlanta, they went to Denver, they
went to Lenaxa, Kansas, and I wish our Kansas Senator was here,
which I have looked up is a part of the Kansas City
metropolitan area. They went to San Francisco. They went to
Washington, DC. They went to Dallas, they went to Seattle, they
went to Chicago.
My State in the last 5 years has lost 10,000 jobs, not
wholly because of this, but some of this plays a large part. So
I will go back to my original request, that the people that are
affected by this environmentally and health-wise are just as
important as the people who stand to lose their jobs over this,
who then are plunged into poverty, who then have hopelessness
around and in their communities, who then become addicted to
drugs and other opioids. It is just a cascading issue. Their
lives are just as important. So that is my plea on that.
Now, last question from me.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a unanimous
consent request?
Senator Barrasso. Yes.
Senator Carper. I am sorry for interrupting. But the
document with respect to the outreach that the EPA did, in
conjunction with the Clean Power Plan, it shows from October, I
think October 16th, 2014, something like this, the document
records nearly 1,000 meetings, calls, presentations,
conferences, consultations, 1,000, and other outreach with
stakeholders. The document shows these post-proposal
interactions included more than 300 meetings with State and
local stakeholders, had 30 discussions with tribes, 450
meetings with industry stakeholders, 150 discussions in
environmental justice and scientific stakeholders, dozens more
discussions with conveners. And this goes on and on and on.
In total, the agency received almost 4.3 million comments
about all aspects of the proposed rule, more than any rule in
EPA history, and thousands of people participated in the
agency's public hearings, Webinars, listening sessions, and so
forth, all across the country. The agency made many revisions
in the final rule in response to those comments. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you. I would ask that once a
questioner starts, they be allowed to continue. We could get
into a lengthy discussion. The EPA was found guilty of covert
propaganda for soliciting information through a number of
environmental groups. It continues to be a blot on the record
of the EPA, and the question of this entire Administration and
their approach toward abilities toward the rule of law versus
an EPA out of control. So we are going to allow the questioner
to continue.
Back to you, Senator Capito.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Not to beat a dead horse, but to try----
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. I will say that the Assistant Administrator
McCabe, when she was telling me that they only wanted to go
where places were comfortable, she looked at me and said,
Senator, we are going to Pittsburgh. Gee. Thanks a lot. Which
is not in West Virginia, I will make that point.
In any event, my question is--you have said a lot about
States, and I agree, the States should have the primacy, it is
in the law. And that is something that, part of why you have
brought suit and part of the reason you have been successful
with other attorneys general.
Let me ask you a question. Let's say you have a State where
you are the administrator of the EPA, and you deem that that
State's Office of Environmental Quality, or DEP, which is what
it is in West Virginia, just doesn't measure up. They are not
protecting their people's health, they are not enforcing the
law. They are, in your judgment and folks that you are working
with, are not up to the task and are letting their people down.
What avenues of correction would you have at the EPA, and
do you have, and what would you exercise in that kind of
category, and what kind of judgments would have to be made for
those things to occur?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I really appreciate the question. I
think there are times where States are recalcitrant, that they
don't perform the obligations that they have, let's say, under
the Clean Air Act, in adopting a State implementation plan, or
as they adopt the State implementation plan they don't take
into consideration all the factors that Congress had put in the
statute and the EPA requires. In those instances it is very
appropriate for the EPA to use its authority like a Federal
implementation plan to take over that jurisdiction and to
ensure that the safety and health of our citizens is protected,
and the air quality is maintained, and water quality is
maintained.
So there is a time and place for that. I think in many
instances, however, over the last several years, it has been
the first response as opposed to cooperation. And a Federal
implementation plan is absolutely in order at times.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, before you start my clock, I
would like to follow up on Senator Inhofe's strategy here of
submitting certain facts back for the record. I would ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record an article from the
Union of Concerned Scientists related to the so-called
ClimateGate that the Senator referred to earlier. That notes
that the manufactured controversy over e-mails stolen from the
university has generated a lot of heat but not light. The e-
mail content being quoted does not indicate climate data
research has been compromised. Most importantly, nothing in the
content of the stolen e-mails has any impact on our overall
understanding of human activities driving dangerous levels of
global warming. Media reports and contrarian claims that they
do are inaccurate.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, since my name was invoked,
let me respond. Were you listening when I talked about the
various publications that have come and talked about how
fraudulent it was? These are publications, science
publications, they have gone in and made their own evaluations.
And for the U.K. Telegraph to say it is the worst scientific
scandal for our generation, that is very extreme.
Senator Merkley. We could have an entire day dedicated to
the review of the scientific literature on this, and it would
weigh very heavily on the scales in the direction I have
indicated in support of the information presented by the Union
of Concerned Scientists. We may just have to agree to disagree.
That is why I submitted it for the record; we will let the
public decide.
Senator Inhofe. And that is why the statement is repeated
over and over again about the science is settled, that is not
an accurate statement.
Senator Barrasso. I would invite the Senator to question
the witness.
Senator Merkley. The beauty of the Senate is we get to have
our own opinions.
Meanwhile, I also wanted to submit for the record in
response, when I was speaking about asthma, Mr. Chairman, you
submitted a study from the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
And it is important to note that that organization has been
funded by the American Petroleum Institute, by a Koch Brothers
front group, and by Exxon, and that there is a series of
responses that invoke the opposite side of that, and the NAACP,
which certainly speak for a broad swath of African Americans,
takes a very, very different stance. And it had endorsed the
Clean Power Plan.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you.
I would also like to submit for the record two articles or
two statements from the National Congress of American Indians
and from Latino organizations, a whole group of Latino
organizations, that are very concerned about this nomination.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Then I would like to turn to a question that has puzzled me
over time. And it is in the context of how one evaluates, how
one views the world. I heard one of my colleagues once present
it this way. If you go to a doctor and they say you have
cancer, you decide you had better get a second opinion. You go
to a hundred doctors, and 97 of them say you have cancer and
you had better act, most people feel like, 97 doctors said I
should act, 3 said I should go take some health care
supplement. Maybe I had better have the operation.
And that is really the place where we are in climate
science now, where the overwhelming weight of the scientific
community weighs in and says, yes, it is very logical, you can
do it in the laboratory, as Senator Whitehouse noted, that
carbon dioxide traps heat. You can do it in a laboratory that
methane traps heat. You can track the change in the environment
of the concentration of those gases. You can see the impacts on
the ground now.
In my home State you have an impact on the oysters, because
the Pacific Ocean is 30 percent more acidic than it was before
we started burning coal. That is a scary thing, when shellfish
have trouble forming shells. It has an economic impact. Our
pine beetles are thriving because the winter is not cold enough
to kill them, and so it is having a huge impact on our forests.
That is an economic impact on rural America.
The southern part of my State has had three worst ever
droughts in the last 15 years. It is a huge impact on
agricultural communities. The streams in Oregon coming from the
snow packs have been declining in size and raising in
temperature, very bad for trout, very bad for salmon. That is
an impact on our fishing community.
So the global warming that is taking place and being driven
by the burning of fossil fuels is having a huge economic impact
on the citizens of my State, my rural citizens, my citizens who
depend on timber, who depend on fishing, who depend on farming.
Should the citizens seek to address this problem? Because we
are just on the front end of this happening.
Ten years ago we were talking about models that led to the
conversation Senator Inhofe had about ClimateGate, about
assumptions and models. We don't need models now. We have facts
on the ground. The moose are dying because the ticks are not
being killed by the winter being cold enough. The fish are
migrating on the Atlantic coast and Maine is losing its
lobsters to Canada.
These facts on the ground are extraordinarily real. They
have a huge economic impact. And shouldn't we take a very
serious approach to the urgency of this problem, as we see it
descending upon us?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think the EPA, and if confirmed as
Administrator, there is currently an obligation to deal with
the issue. The Massachusetts v. EPA case says that
CO2 is a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. And as
such that is what generated the 2009 endangerment finding. So I
think there is a legal obligation presently for the EPA
Administrator to respond to the CO2 issue through
proper regulations.
Senator Merkley. I believe you are acknowledging in that,
which I am glad to hear, that it is a serious problem and that
the EPA, that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and we have a legal
obligation to take it on.
Mr. Pruitt. I think Massachusetts v. EPA says that.
Counterbalance, by the UARG decision, that came out a few years
later, that you can't transform a statute, as the EPA sought to
do with the PSD program. So I think the court has spoken very
emphatically about this issue. And the EPA has a legal
obligation to respond.
Senator Merkley. And as you kind of rank the urgency with
which you bring to this, do you see it as something that you
wake up every day being, like, the next generation will weigh
whether or not we acted promptly? Or is it more, I have a legal
obligation because of this court decision, so I will have to
have some folks pay some attention to it?
Mr. Pruitt. I think the importance, Senator, it is very
difficult to prioritize. Senator Gillibrand is not here, but
when she talks to me about PFOA and the threat that she is
facing in New York, is that any less important than the
CO2 issue? It is not. So the EPA deals with very
weighty issues, as you know, water and air quality. It is a
matter of prioritizing the resources to achieve better outcomes
in each. And I think it is very important to do so as
Administrator.
Senator Merkley. I do feel like perhaps you don't
understand the gravity of the situation, from your response.
Because there are feedback mechanisms that are starting to
occur with the open bluewater in the Arctic, feedback from
methane bubbling up from the permafrost, bubbling up from the
peat bogs, bubbling up from what was previously frozen methane
on the bottom of the ocean that has incredibly accelerating
impact on global warming.
Our rate of carbon dioxide pollution is not decreasing
globally. It has doubled in rate from one part per million per
year to two parts per million per year. So we are on an
accelerating curve as a human civilization. And if human
civilization doesn't get it together very quickly, we are in
very deep trouble. I would hope at some point perhaps the
urgency of the situation would be something you will grab hold
of.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Rounds.
Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Attorney General Pruitt, last year at an oversight hearing,
we heard reports of the EPA regional offices who are sending
companies information collection requests, or ICRs, pursuant to
section 114 of the Clean Air Act, regarding their operations,
with no explanation as to the reason for the ICRs. These ICRs,
which companies are legally obligated to respond to, can cost
the companies millions of dollars to collect the information to
respond to the request. They often hear no follow up from the
EPA regarding whether their response was adequate or what the
information would be used for.
Last year, I requested from the EPA a record of the ICRs
that had been sent to U.S. companies throughout the various
regions. I was told by the EPA staff that there was no way to
get this information, because they didn't have it.
Second, in 2015 I wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy requesting the economic information that forms
the basis of the Clean Power Plan and the ozone NOx
standards. These are the major regulations that were being
quickly imposed on American taxpayers. The response which I
received, it took 2 and a half months to get the response, but
I understand that I am one of the few recipients of an actual
letter back from the EPA, and I would ask that it be included
as part of the record of the meeting today, Mr. Chairman. The
letter was basically nothing short of referring me to an
Internet link that directed me to a Web page, the same Web page
which generated the questions in the first place. Essentially,
they just simply suggested that I Google it. Not hardly a
response that you would expect back from a Federal agency, at
least one that was trying to be responsive with regard to major
proposed rules.
Working as a United States Senator I have found it nearly
impossible to easily access the information that I am looking
for. I can't imagine the difficulty of a small business, a
farmer or a rancher, when they are seeking to get information
from the Environmental Protection Agency. As the EPA
Administrator, the role which you are seeking, do you believe
that this is an adequate way to communicate what the public and
elected officials, and where are your views on making agency
communication and recordkeeping more transparent and
accessible?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, this is actually a common theme. As I
met with many of you on this Committee, both Democrats and
Republicans, it was expressed to me that concern about the lack
of response by the EPA at all, in response to inquiries, let
alone the time of response. So I believe it is very important,
as I indicated in my opening statement, to listen not only to
the voices of the American people, but listen to Members of
Congress, listen to members of this body with respect to the
issues that are of concern to them in their respective States.
That is something I take very seriously and would seek to
respond very expeditiously to you and to others in this body
with responses.
Senator Rounds. The Ranking Member had asked, and was
following up with questions in terms of your role as the
Attorney General with regard to fracking issues in Oklahoma,
but also with regard to clean air attainment levels and so
forth. It seemed to me that what you were trying to portray at
the time, and I would like you to expand on this, because I
think this is important, is that you have a different role as
an Attorney General than you would be if you were responsible
as the agency within the State who had the direct statutory
authority to respond to those issues. It seems to me that that
is one of the roles that the EPA Administrator has which would
be different than that of Attorney General, which is the
execution of the laws that we have passed.
Could you expand a little bit? Because I think this is
really important in terms of the way you perceive your duties
with regard to executing the laws that this Congress has
passed.
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator, and I appreciate the question.
The role of Administrator is to perform an executive role, an
executive policymaking role and carrying out the functions and
the statutes that Congress has passed. That is much different
than my current role as Attorney General. As I tried to
indicate to Senator Carper, in respect to enforcement actions
in the State of Oklahoma, that is vested specifically in the
Department of Environmental Quality. They are the ones that
bring enforcement actions against companies who do not comply
with air permits, et cetera. We provide general counsel to them
in that process, but it is not our responsibility. But more, it
is not our jurisdiction. And that is important to me, because
it goes back to rule of law; it goes back to process.
I think oftentimes what we see in this country is that
folks kind of disregard the authority or jurisdiction that has
been given to them by the statute of the Constitution, and they
act anyway. That is what creates, I think, a lack of confidence
in the American people. So I try to respect those boundaries. I
try to respect my role as Attorney General, stay in my lane, if
you will, and provide the counsel and perform the job that we
are supposed to perform to that agency, but then allow that
agency to enforce as required by law.
Senator Rounds. And then very quickly, that also means that
with regard to determining the science behind the laws that we
create, as the Administrator, you are not going to make the
determination yourself. You expect that sound science and the
scientists with that background would be making the
recommendations that you would then face a decision on?
Mr. Pruitt. Yes, Senator, objective and transparent in that
process.
Senator Rounds. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, if you would gracefully hold
the clock for a second, because I want to respond very
succinctly to something that you and Senator Boozman said.
First of all, to you, sir, this is my first time going through
nomination hearings. You have been very generous with the way
you have been conducting these hearings. I think it is
important that we note that, and I appreciate the number of
rounds that you are doing.
And then to Senator Boozman, I really do appreciate him
adding to the line of inquiry I am having, he referred to me as
a friend, which means a lot to me. People around here, your
colleagues, know that you have a deep respect for the kind of
kindness and just decency that you represent, a level to which
I aspire but have not attained. Thank you for that. Thank you
for indulging me.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Senator Booker. And again, with respect to my colleague,
who is a really good man, if this was between Delaware and New
Jersey, I am the up-State, I would be very happy with the
agreement that it seems that you, you are the down-State. So
that is what I don't understand. You said earlier in your
testimony in regard to this matter that you have a copy of the
2003 agreement. Do you have that?
Mr. Pruitt. I have the second agreement, Senator.
Senator Booker. OK, let's just look at the 2000 agreement.
I know you claimed in your testimony earlier that the 2003
agreement had expiration on it.
Mr. Pruitt. There was a 10-year period. But that needed to
be reevaluated. This is the second statement I have here,
Senator.
Senator Booker. I just want to clarify that it is a
contradiction. There is no expiration on the 2003 agreement. It
had a reevaluation, a period in which it would be reevaluated.
And it was reevaluated by your State with involvement of the
EPA and the involvement of Arkansas, and they came up with the
same .037 standard. And if you look at the provisions of what
you do have in front of you, the 2013 agreement, and I have a
blow-up of page 4 of that agreement, it states that--starting
here, it states that Oklahoma, through the Water Resources
Board, will propose a rule amendment that removes the date to
achieve full compliance with a numeric phosphorus criterion set
forth in Oklahoma administrative code. Then it lists these two
codes.
If you look at those two codes, what those two codes do,
you know what they are, they said the sections of phosphorus
concentration shall not exceed .037 by June 30th. It is
removing the June 30th deadline in these two statutes.
So that is what is frustrating to me, is that this is what
you are heralding as a great agreement. But you already had in
the year 2013 agreement--it is clear that you are doing, to me,
and I don't know any other way of reading the facts, is that
you take a binding rule of law and you suspend it for another 3
years, allowing more pollution to take place.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, that is not--the issue here was not
whether Oklahoma could enforce its .037 standard; it was
whether Arkansas was going to adopt that standard on that side
of the border. That had never taken place in history. That was
the concern of Oklahomans. That was the concern of Mr. Fite at
the Seneca-Illinois River.
Senator Booker. So I am going to stipulate to what you
said, because I am running out of time, sir. I agree with you,
whether Arkansas was going to be able to live up to that
standard. But you are the Oklahoma Attorney General. And this
is what I want to say. As soon as you did this so-called
historic agreement that set it back, you basically turned to
the EPA with a rule, with the power of law of the Supreme Court
and said, OK, back off my corporations.
Why do I say that so confidently? Because I pulled a letter
from Tyson Foods that literally 6 days after your so-called
historic agreement of suspending this rule for 3 years, they
are delighted. They write to the EPA and say, hey, you may have
not only heard of the February 20th agreement by Oklahoma and
Arkansas officials to jointly conduct a comprehensive study of
concentrations and impacts in the Illinois rivershed. They are
excited. They literally say, compliance, however, with the now
.037 has been suspend. So lay off us, EPA, under this
agreement, until the study process is completed. In conclusion,
the bi-State agreement has suspended implementation date of
.037 during the term of the agreement.
Industry is really happy about this, and believes--and of
course this letter, you are saying Tyson is wrong; they believe
that what you did is give them, the EPA, with the power of the
Supreme Court and 20 years of work that predecessors of yours
had done, the power to suspend that power over them to comply
with the law.
So that is really what I am struggling with. On one hand
you say that you filed lawsuits against 14 people, against the
EPA. It is this idea of federalism, of Oklahoma sovereignty,
Oklahoma States' rights, you are fiercely fighting for
Oklahoma. And on the side of the polluters. You say the EPA is
attempting to do things.
But then on the other hand, in this case that you are
talking about, you switch suddenly to say, well, Oklahoma's
water quality standard for phosphorus, that has been worked on
for 25 years, armed with an EPA approval, armed with a Supreme
Court decision, on point saying that up-river States are bound,
industries believe that they are bound, but suddenly you are no
longer fighting for Oklahoma. You are fighting to protect
industry, on the side of industry again.
Mr. Pruitt. I can assure you, Senator, that industry didn't
think they were bound.
Senator Booker. Why did Tyson write the letter, sir?
Mr. Pruitt. I don't know why they sent that. Because as
Senator Boozman indicated earlier, the phosphorus level at .037
was unenforceable on the Arkansas side of the border. That was
the concern. Until this agreement that we have here was
negotiated and signed by Arkansas, that had never occurred in
the history of Oklahoma.
Senator Booker. But sir, Arkansas was party to the 2012
scientific investigation. They are bound by the Supreme Court
case which I pointed out to you already, and I can read you the
binding paragraphs, [unclear] by the EPA and obviously
understood by industry that they were bound by that standard.
Your agreement didn't stop it. It extended the period in which
people could pollute. I don't understand how that could be
historic.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I think as you look at what was
achieved between Arkansas and Oklahoma, you had the Arkansas
Attorney General, Ed Fite, who had been involved in these
issues, as indicated earlier, since 1983, trying to enforce and
obtain water quality that improved the Seneca-Illinois River;
he cited the historic results in this matter.
So I am unaware of the letter that you are referring to,
but I can assure that industry was not, not at all excited
about .037 being enforced on the Arkansas side of the border.
Senator Booker. And I will conclude just by saying, sir, it
is clear that industry was excited about the 3-year delay that
you bought them to continue to pollute. It is written there in
a letter. It seems to me the theme in your work is not
federalism and States' rights, but deregulation in siding with
polluters against the environment and public health standards.
It is unfortunate to me that , unless you can show me something
different in the way that this actually helped to clean up the
river quicker, but I just don't see that at all in the evidence
and the facts that I have before me.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Booker.
Our next questioner is actually Senator Boozman. Since we
have Oklahoma and Arkansas both here, I don't know if you have
a question, Senator Boozman, or if you just want to make a
comment about this agreement, since both of the States are
here. You represent the congressional district directly
adjacent.
Senator Boozman. I want to make a quick comment, and then
after that, I think all of my questions have been answered. I
would yield back if we can have agreement.
I think the thing, Senator Booker, to understand is that
first of all, the water was not being polluted at that point.
Arkansas had made tremendous improvement over the years, and
had just--our discharge in Springdale, Fayetteville, Rogers,
Bentonville, the major communities there that have grown
tremendously during that timeframe, their discharges were down
to very admirable levels. So all of that was being done.
The question was, was .037 fair versus .04 or .05. As I
mentioned earlier our most pristine river in Arkansas was not
at .037. So we didn't feel like we could do that. So Oklahoma
was happy with all this stuff. Arkansas is not. And because of
that, in 2013, as the agreement ran out, they were prepared to
go back to court again. This thing had been litigated since the
Supreme Court finding back in the 1990s all along the line.
To be honest, I am not happy with the .037. I think it is
too stringent. I would challenge to find a river in New Jersey
that meets that standard, and you can't do it. It is a very,
very stringent standard.
So it wasn't continuing to pollute and things like that.
Tremendous progress made on the Arkansas side. Everyone agrees
with that. It was, where do you draw the limit.
So often with the EPA, and this is so important, we have
had on the Committee, we have had the gentleman that represents
the water district for this huge area. They spent a billion
dollars doing a great job of cleaning things up, raising
everybody's rates. EPA has come back and wants them to spend
another billion dollars for a tiny fraction that everybody
agrees would not have any impact on the water quality in the
river. These are the kinds of things that you get into.
So again, I am really not happy at all about the .037. I
think that Tyson and the industry were happy in the sense that
you would have a situation where you would have some finality,
you would have some resolution so that everybody could go
forward.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Ernst, any final comments or
thoughts or questions?
Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any
further questions. Whatever additional questions I have, I will
submit for the record.
But I do have some closing comments. I do want to push back
a little bit on the Ranking Member's comments earlier. I had
gone through a series of examples of overreach by the
Government with the expanded definition of Waters of the U.S.
And the Ranking Member had stated that he had a letter that he
had received from Administrator Gina McCarthy. And I have no
doubt that she was answering those questions honestly, because
she wasn't the one making the statements. The statements that I
presented came from the Corps of Engineers and the Department
of Justice.
Now, I know this to be true: these are not as implied from
some obscure Web site off of the Internet done by some blogger
in a basement somewhere. The comments actually came from this
Committee, case studies from this Committee, September 2016.
These are examples of case studies from all across the United
States. I will cite just one that I opened up to.
A landowner in California received an investigation letter
from the Corps informing him that disking performed by a tenant
farmer on his land may have resulted in an unauthorized
discharged into WOTUS and that regulators had opened a case
against the landowner. They are being implemented, case by
case. This letter came as a surprise to the landowner, who had
been disking this particular site periodically over the last 15
years to sustain grazing conditions for his cattle, a practice
he believed was normal, until he received this notice.
The court told the landowner's consultant that all disking
for any purpose and at any depth with any potential WOTUS is a
discharge into WOTUS, and in the absence of a permit represents
an unauthorized discharge in violation of the Clean Water Act.
This is an actual letter from the Corps that was submitted to
this Committee, the EPW Committee, last year.
So this is not made up. This is a very real impact to all
Americans. So I appreciate your stance, Attorney General
Pruitt, that if you are confirmed, you will work with those
that wish to continue farming and normal practices. But this is
not made up, folks. We just need everyone to understand that
the Corps, the DOJ, and the EPA have gone beyond what we
consider to be reasonable application of the law.
Thank you very much.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond very
briefly. The letter that I sent on January 11th was not just to
the EPA. It was to the head of the EPA and also the Assistant
Secretary at the Army, Department of the Army, who is in charge
of the Army Corps of Engineers. So it was really to both, both
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers. I gave them a half-dozen
or more questions and said, these assertions that we are
hearing, what is the truth? And they responded jointly.
Senator Ernst. And if I can respond to that, I apologize,
because I was going to use Senator Rounds' letter as a prop. I
had not seen a letter from the EPA. I had written Administrator
Gina McCarthy nearly 2 years ago on some issues that I was
wanting addressed for Iowa. And I invited her to come to Iowa
and visit. She never, ever responded to me or my staff.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Markey.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Pruitt, you have criticized the Obama administration on
a number of occasions for allegedly ``colluding with
environmental groups to engage in sue and settle tactics.'' You
just reiterated your concern to Senator Inhofe.
But in December many of your co-plaintiff attorneys
general, who are suing the EPA over the Clean Power Plan, sent
a letter to President-Elect Trump, urging him to settle their
lawsuits related to the Clean Power Plan. That sure sounds like
an invitation to engage in sue and settle to me.
To avoid the appearance of entering into sweetheart
settlements on the Clean Power Plan cases will you commit to
recusing yourself form all ongoing litigation that you are
involved in?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, I would say to you that the sue and
settle practice, whether by this Administration or future
administrations, is a practice that should not be followed. I
believe that regulation through litigation is wrong. I believe
that the rulemaking process that Congress has established
should be respected by agencies, not only the EPA but across
the board.
I would mention one case to you.
Senator Markey. It looks a lot like that is what the
attorneys general are doing, who are suing. And you are a co-
plaintiff in this case on the Clean Power Plan. Will you recuse
yourself from any role in the settling of these cases, in the
negotiation on a settling of these cases?
Mr. Pruitt. The sue and settle practice should not be used
by any administration to regulate. We have experienced in
Oklahoma a case involving the Fish and Wildlife and Endangered
Species Act in the relisting of the lesser prairie-chicken that
impacted our State. So sue and settle is wrong.
Senator Markey. Are you giving me a yes, that you will not
settle with these attorneys general?
Mr. Pruitt. I will not engage in a sue and settle practice,
if confirmed as EPA Administrator, at any time.
Senator Markey. Will you negotiate with them to reach a
settlement, such as has been recommended by the attorneys
general who are the plaintiffs in this case against the Clean
Power Plan?
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, it is a belief of mine that the use of
sue and settle is a practice that should not be done by any
agency of the U.S. Government.
Senator Markey. Right. So will you recuse yourself from any
involvement in this litigation as it is being decided?
Mr. Pruitt. As I have indicated to you, Senator, the EPA
ethics counsel, career staff at the EPA, has said that a
particular matter, a specific case that those will be evaluated
at the time. I will seek their counsel and comply with their
counsel.
Senator Markey. Honestly, Mr. Pruitt, there is no bigger
case than the Clean Power Plan. It goes to the promise that the
United States is making to the world that we are going to
reduce significantly our greenhouse gases. So this just goes to
you as an individual saying that since you brought the case
with these other attorneys general that you will now recuse
yourself. Since you are in fact the plaintiff and defendant in
this case if you are confirmed as the EPA Administrator.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I indicated to you earlier, and I
am sorry to interrupt you, but as I indicated to you earlier, I
will recuse if directed by the EPA ethics counsel, career staff
at EPA ethics. You know these individuals. They have been
there, and I will follow their counsel and guidance.
Senator Markey. All right. I know I am not going to get you
to recuse yourself from any of these cases, but I am just
telling you, it is going to wind up being a huge conflict of
interest if these attorneys general get to settle on their
terms with the Trump administration and you are sitting there
in the middle of the room as that occurs.
Now, let me go to another subject, and that is this bottle
of Trump water. Trump water, natural spring water. On the label
it says, ``pure, fresh and free from contaminants. This is
water the way it was meant to be.'' Trump hotel guests have the
luxury of drinking this water if they don't trust what comes
out of the tap. Low income communities across our country do
not have the same luxury. Do you agree that the EPA plays a
critical role in ensuring that all Americans, regardless of
racial, ethnic, or economic backgrounds, have a right to clean
water, free from contaminants?
Mr. Pruitt. Absolutely. In fact, Senator Booker and I
talked about environmental justice in our meeting.
Senator Markey. That is great. As the widespread lead
contamination in Flint, Michigan's water supply tragically
reminds us, low income and minority communities often bear far
greater environmental burdens. Yet you told Senator Cardin
earlier today that you didn't know if there is any safe level
of lead. But scientific experts, including the CDC and World
Health Organization, have concluded that there is no safe level
of lead exposure.
Will you commit to making environmental justice for poor
and minority communities an immediate priority of the EPA, if
you are confirmed as Administrator?
Mr. Pruitt. I believe it is a very important role of the
EPA Administrator.
Senator Markey. Well, minority communities often don't have
the money----
Senator Barrasso. The Senator's time has expired in the
third round. Thank you.
Senator Sullivan.
Senator Sullivan. General Pruitt, I just have one final
question. We talked about some of the challenges that we have;
this Committee has been working on infrastructure issues. There
were a lot of discussions last year about Flint, Michigan, and
aging infrastructure, which I think is a concern at the State
and local and Federal levels.
There is also a challenge in certain parts of the country
on no infrastructure. None. No clean water and sewer. My State
has over 30 communities that don't have any clean water and
sewer. In terms of the diseases and the living conditions in
communities like that, as you can imagine it can be very
difficult. So in a bipartisan way, this Committee acted last
year, established a new program for disadvantaged communities,
small communities, to work on those kinds of issues for
different communities, whether Alaska or other parts of the
country, that literally live in third world conditions in some
communities. So that would be administered by the EPA, this new
program. I just want to get your commitment to work with us to
fully fund that new program to work on those kinds of issues.
Mr. Pruitt. As we talked about in our meeting, Senator, I
believe sometimes when infrastructure is referenced we think
roads and bridges, and we don't think water infrastructure. I
think all those are important, and I would make that a priority
interfacing with Congress if confirmed as EPA Administrator.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
I want to thank all the members for the respectful way in
which the business was conducted today. Members may also submit
follow up written questions, but it seems that everyone had
plenty of opportunity to ask oral questions. Schedule for the
close, the recording for the close of business Thursday,
January 19th--Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. I thought we were going to do one more.
Senator Barrasso. I thought three rounds was the longest in
the history of this. The last, the only other time there were
three rounds was Christie Todd Whitman in 2001. Those were
three rounds of 5 minutes each. And the reason that she as a
Republican nominee was given three rounds is that the Chairman
of the Committee was Harry Reid. So three rounds, the witness
has been here since 10. It is now 4:30, so he has been 6 and a
half hours, and three rounds. By any criteria that one would
use, each of 5 minutes, when Gina McCarthy was nominated, and I
had significant numbers of questions, Barbara Boxer limited me
to one 5-minute round and one 2-minute round. We have more than
doubled today that amount of time for questioning.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. I am certainly not saying that you've
been unfair with us, but until this very minute, I don't think
it has been clear to anyone that there was a three round limit.
I believe you opened the hearing by saying that we would go on
until people's questions were answered.
So this is a bit of a novelty. But again, please don't take
it as a criticism of your fairness. I think that you have been
fair. This is just news. And I do have a bunch of questions
right here that I'd hoped to ask as what I expected to be a
final fourth round.
Senator Barrasso. Then I would invite you to please submit
those follow up written questions by tomorrow close of
business.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I be recognized?
Senator Barrasso. Yes, sir. Senator Carper, and then
Senator Booker.
Senator Carper. I appreciate the way you've conducted this
hearing today. I appreciate all the members coming and coming
back again and again. When we were talking a week or two ago
about the hearing, whether to have 1 day of hearings or 2 days
of hearings, our side was interested in having 2 days of
hearings. We were interested in having an outside panel, and it
was explained to us that that is not really the tradition of
the Committee, to have an outside panel.
But you, Senator, preferred to have it in 1 day, and we'll
stay as long as people have questions, I think those were
almost exactly your words. And that is hard to argue with, to
stay as long as people have questions. Some of the folks have
some more questions. I know I do. And we are not running out
the clock on those questions. I would just ask that you think
back on our earlier conversation, and you see your way clear to
have one more round, and we'll call it a day.
Senator Barrasso. Yes, well, I would say a couple of
things. One is, I offered to start the Committee meeting
earlier today because there are many of us who have commitments
into the evening, people from our home States who are here for
the inauguration activities. We have commitments for our home
States. And the idea of starting at 9 was rejected. And we
wanted to go along, right before the third round, I said, now,
if there is going to be ongoing, maybe we should take a break,
give the witness an opportunity to take a break, you said, no,
let's plow on.
The witness has been sitting there now for just about 3
hours. And depending on wishes of the Committee, my preference
is to say, we have done more than ever done in the last 16
years or 17 years for nominees. If people have one or two
questions I would want to give the witness an opportunity to
stretch his legs. I will be happy to stay. And we can come back
with a 3-minute round.
But I just think--people have obligations and commitments.
And we thought we would be completed by now. It does seem by
many of the end, and for people who are here now, they could
go. So we have three members, if you want to go 2 to 3 minutes
or one or two questions, I think we would be able to
accommodate. But to bring back the entire Committee and go into
the night----
Senator Carper. I am not suggesting we bring back the
entire Committee. Let me just suggest that if we can, we can
agree here. Those that are here today, right this moment, if
they have questions, give them 5 minutes. And then when they're
done, we are done.
Senator Barrasso. Any objection from our side?
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Though we would be able to yield back any
time that we had, if we didn't want to use it.
Senator Barrasso. Sure.
Senator Carper. Or you could yield to us.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. I can only say that I have chaired this
Committee for quite a number of years. I have been through this
once before, and there is always an effort by those who are
perhaps not really satisfied, as some of the others might be,
to try to make it continue on and on and on.
I would prefer to go ahead. I think we have all had
adequate time and be prepared to vote.
Senator Barrasso. Well, we don't have a vote scheduled for
today on this. We don't have an agreement on that. So it
wouldn't be a vote. I would say, if we----
Senator Inhofe. Well, if that is the case, then we can
confine it for the record, any questions that they have.
Senator Barrasso. Any other suggestions?
Senator Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, I think you've been
exceedingly fair, particularly relative to the confirmation of
Gina McCarthy. And I think it is purely within your call to
have additional questions be submitted for the record. The
opportunity for the witness to answer all the questions, he'll
still have to do it before his confirmation. But relative to
any other EPA Administrator hearing, you've been very generous,
very fair, and I think that in retrospective, I think that is a
very fair outcome, to still ask the questions, just submit the
questions for the record.
Senator Carper. Can I respond to our colleague from Alaska?
I don't know if you remember a year or 2 ago, there was a joint
session of the House and Senate committees, environment
committees. And the witness was Gina McCarthy. And I arrived 4
hours into the hearing. And after a while, I was recognized to
ask a question. And my first question of Gina McCarthy was,
you've been here for 4 hours, haven't you? She said yes. And I
said, is there any question you haven't been asked that you
wish you had been asked? And she said yes. I said, what is it?
She said, I wish I'd been asked if I needed a bathroom break.
[Laughter.]
Senator Carper. I don't know if the witness could use a
bathroom break. But if you need one for a couple minutes, we
could arrange that.
Here's what we are asking for. Five minutes, Cory Booker,
Sheldon Whitehouse, Tom Carper. We ask our questions and we are
done. That's it. Can you handle that? Why don't you say yes?
We're wasting a lot of time here.
Senator Barrasso. As you said, you have a couple of
questions. Let's go 3 minutes each and we'll call it good.
You're up.
Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. I'd asked to be recognized earlier. I do
want to----
Senator Barrasso. I apologize. Yes, sir.
Senator Booker. I just want to repeat, I do think what
Senator Sullivan said, you have been very, very generous, it is
true. I appreciate what seems like an accord right now of a few
minutes now. I'd appreciate that.
One thing you didn't mark, which I think should be really
important, is I have no sympathy for the nominee and his
endurance. I do have for his family, behind him, who has sat
through this. I just want to mark for the record that they are
true champs. I think that is important to know. I thank them
for their indulgence. Not the nominee, but them.
Senator Inhofe. I would just say that is more evidence that
he cares for the children of Oklahoma.
[Laughter.]
Senator Barrasso. I would just say, more people vote for me
because of my wife than vote for me, and I would suggest for
you as well, in the case of this nominee.
Senator Carper. Let me yield to Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. I just want to touch on two things, and
then we'll wrap up. The first is that on your questionnaire you
listed an e-mail address with a me.com domain as your business
e-mail. You also have an OAG.ok.gov address. Are there other e-
mail addresses that you have, and are the other e-mail
addresses that you use for business other than your me.com and
your OAG.ok.gov e-mail addresses?
Mr. Pruitt. I am sorry, Senator. The ``me'' address is not
a business e-mail address. I am not sure why it was designated
as such.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, maybe we can just correct the
filing on that.
Mr. Pruitt. There are no other e-mail addresses, if that is
your question, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. We have gone through the cases that you
list as your environmental cases. When we take out the cases
that were started by your predecessor, Drew Edmonson, and when
you take out the cases that are fish kill cases, which I
understand is a formulaic matter that is resolved by letter at
the staff level, you count the fish, you pay the fee, and when
you take out the qui tam cases, which are, for those who aren't
lawyers, a private individual who brings an action, and then
the Attorney General can step in and take the action over if
they want, but it is brought in the first instance by a private
individual. And then if you take out the cases in which you
sued EPA, there is virtually nothing left.
And in addition to that we have that you closed the
environmental protection unit in Oklahoma as a free standing
unit. You told me when we met that you had rolled it into your
federalism unit. But I was just on the federalism unit's Web
site, and the word ``environmental'' doesn't even appear on
that. It appears to be run by the Solicitor General. It says
over and over again that it is involved in appellate
litigation. And of course if you are bringing an action you are
not starting at the appellate level.
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, if I may, the Deputy Solicitor
General, Clayton Eubanks, was actually employed by the previous
Attorney General. He has been designated the Deputy Solicitor
General and is responsible for environmental related advice and
consent to those agencies.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. That's a different function,
though. That's a different function than to bring an action. I
have been an Attorney General, too. I know the difference. The
Attorney General has an obligation to provide lawyers, to give
advice to agencies. But you also have the authority to bring
criminal actions if you wish. And you have the authority to
bring civil actions if you wish. And it is those authorities
that I believe have not gotten much attention.
And the last piece of that, because you will have a chance
to respond, but I am on a short clock, is that there was in
Oklahoma an environmental crimes task force that your
predecessor led. It describes, and I would ask to have these
documents put into the record, from 1997 to 2010 the OECTF, the
Environmental Crimes Task Force or the Environmental Protection
Unit, in conjunction with EPA and other entities, conducted 142
criminal investigations, resulting in 56 prosecutions. Criminal
cases resulted in individual convictions on 110 felonies, 21
misdemeanor counts, corporate convictions, 10 felony and 3
misdemeanor counts, $8 million in fines, 28 years of jail time.
We can put it in the record.
Do you even participate in the Oklahoma Environmental
Crimes Task Force still?
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pruitt. Senator, as I have indicated, we work each day
with our Department of Environmental Quality on enforcement
along with other agencies. I guess it is a matter of ``who
takes the credit'' for that type of enforcement. But those
individuals have offered statements to this body. They are a
matter of the record. You've heard statements that the Chairman
has referred to that we have worked diligently with those
agencies to enforce appropriately. And I would refer to their
statements in response.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Booker.
Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
First of all, I appreciate your talking about environmental
justice and mentioning that. We did talk about that, and I felt
good about your personal commitment, at least to me, that you
would pursue that.
I just want to go through this last point. I want to put
together a fact pattern here to let you have at it and dispute
it. I know there is at least one point in here you dispute, and
I really want to get to what I draw from the facts. And you
can, again, have the last word.
So what I am seeing, that I put together all the facts,
just a pattern. There's a litigation from your predecessor that
you declined to conclude when you got in against polluting
poultry producers who were dumping hundreds of thousands of
tons of chicken waste into the Illinois River watershed. You
shut down the environmental enforcement unit in your office.
This is the one I know you do not agree with me on. But I see
it as that you also attempted to suspend Oklahoma's water
quality standard for 3 years.
But the last fact, and again, you have the last word here,
sir, is that you also supported a constitutional amendment,
State Question 777, the so-called Right to Farm amendment, that
would have made it more difficult for the Oklahoma State
Legislature, again, you talk about federalism, now trying to
take the teeth out of the Oklahoma State Legislature and local
governments to enact their own environmental laws in the
future,
And this kind of support, and I looked all throughout the
magazines, you are going in support of this, it is clear. Here
you are in the pro and con about supporting 777. Here is--most
of the editorial boards were against you on this in your State.
Here's one from Tulsa World Endorsement that said the measure
would prevent future State and local regulation on farming and
livestock activities unless the State has a compelling State
interest, a very high legal standard, as I know, not the lawyer
that you are, sir, but I know that is a very hard one--
standard--to meet.
So this is the challenge, this idea that you are supporting
federalism versus, it seems to me, a pattern of you being on
the side of the polluters, and even trying to take the teeth
out of the State legislature's ability to regulate these
harmful environmental toxins. I am happy that this ballot
initiative was overwhelmingly defeated by Oklahoma voters. But
as I see you ascending potentially to this very important
position, sir, I just worry about whose side you are going to
be on, given the fact pattern that I have about big industry,
about big pollution, especially as I know the billions of
animals that we have in CAFOs that are poisoning rivers all
over this country.
I really just want you to respond to that, sir. And I will
say, because this will be my last word, you will have it. I
want to thank you for your indulgence. And I want to thank your
family as well.
Mr. Pruitt. Thank you, Senator. And let me respond. There's
been some confusion about the litigation. You made reference to
several things there, and if I may respond to a couple. The
litigation to which you refer, Senator Boozman actually
referred to it as well; my predecessor did bring an action,
approximately 2007 timeframe, against the poultry industry and
many other defendants in the Northern District of Oklahoma.
That case had been fully litigated, submitted to the court for
decision before I ever came into office. It was an example of
potentially regulation through litigation. And I have talked
about that earlier in response to questions.
I had every authority to dismiss that case when I came into
office. I did not. That case is still pending today, awaiting a
Federal judge's decision. I have taken no action to undermine
that case. I have done nothing but file briefs in support of
the court making a decision. So that is a point of clarity on
the litigation.
With respect to our office, I submitted this in response to
Senator Whitehouse's request. We met last week and he asked
about FTEs and budget. I have submitted response to him. We
have almost a $700,000 budget that the Administrator of our
office has attributed to environmental-related activities and
seven FTEs that are associated with that as well. So I want to
make sure that those two items were shared with you in response
to your comments.
Senator Booker. You have nothing to respond to on the State
Question 777?
Mr. Pruitt. The State Question 777, we are actually
involved in the ballot drafting of those things. So though you
represented that I was actively involved in an endorsement, I
really was not as far as the actual vote. Now, there was some
op-ed and some decisions. But I have tried to make sure that I
didn't get involved in that because of our other obligations in
the office.
Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
Senator Booker. And I can submit this for the record, sir?
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Booker. Thank you, sir.
Senator Carper. Mr. Pruitt, earlier today I mentioned that
had submitted a list of about 50 questions to you shortly after
Christmas, asked for a response by January 9th and got none. I
asked my staff this morning if we had gotten written responses
to those questions as of today. And I understand that we have
not.
You're going to receive a number of questions for the
record from us, Democrats and Republicans. And I am anxious to
see what your responses are to those questions. We need your
answers, and we need good answers. And the idea of waiting 2 or
3 weeks and not providing anything is just unacceptable. So
just to put that out there.
And I would like to ask you a question.
Mr. Pruitt. If I may offer this, I tried to, and I talked
to the Chairman about this, with respect to your questions I
submitted, I was respecting the protocol of the Chair in
responding to those questions and committed that those
questions would be answered for the record post the hearing.
And that is what I was directed to do by the Chairman.
Senator Carper. All right.
Second, based on your other statements, I just want to
clarify something. If confirmed, can we have your assurances
that the EPA will continue to regulate mercury emissions from
power plants under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, and you
will not defer to the States?
Mr. Pruitt. Mercury, under the section 112, is something
that EPA should deal with and regulate.
Senator Carper. Thank you. I came across a quote from you
that said--I think you stated the following about an EPA rule
involving cross-State smog pollution. And the EPA rule, I think
you were quoted as saying, ``threatened the competitive edge
Oklahoma has enjoyed for years with low cost and reliable
electric generation. This low cost energy not only benefits
Oklahoma manufacturers but gives our State a considerable edge
in recruiting new jobs.'' And the question I would ask, at the
peril of those of us who live in States that are downwind from
where Oklahoma might be, as you lower your energy costs to
benefit Oklahomans, I just want to ask you, in the spirit of
the Golden Rule, keep in mind what that means for us. Keep in
mind what that means for us.
Because in my State, I said earlier on, I can shut down my
State's economy, and we still would be out of compliance on any
number of Clean Air requirements. And that was not because of
anything we put up in the air but because of what folks out to
the west put up in the air. It eventually came down to the end
of America's tailpipe. I would just ask that you do that.
And last, we have a chart, you see this chart. It's an
interesting chart. This is what we call a busy chart. It's a
busy chart. It looks at the issue of cross-border pollution, as
you can see, with this chart, smog, pollution in our country
moves all over the place. I mean, all over the place. As I
mentioned, as Delaware's Governor, we shut down my State in
order to come in compliance with Clean Air challenges. Under
your vision for EPA it sounds like States will be left on their
own to deal with this very complex problem that we see
demonstrated right here. I would just ask, how do States
address this kind of pollution you see demonstrated here
without the assistance of the EPA?
Mr. Pruitt. Well, Senator, as I indicated earlier today, I
believe that as an example, the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,
to which you just referred, is a very important authority that
the EPA needs to exercise. It needs to do so within the
processes that have been provided by the statute. But it is
something that is very important for the EPA to perform and
execute.
Senator Carper. All right. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous
consent request to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman, a
number of letters with concerns about and many letters in
opposition to, some cases for, other cases opposition to Mr.
Pruitt's nomination. There are 14 in all.
Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
[The referenced letters follow:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Carper. Thank you so much.
And again, to Mr. Pruitt, to your family, thank you all for
joining us today. I see Cage, your son, right behind you, I
could barely see Cage's lips moving when you spoke. So I
suspect he has a future in law, I am not sure.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Pruitt. We'll see. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Attorney General Pruitt, I do want to
follow up; as you said, you were instructed by the Committee. I
have a copy for the record of a January 9th letter which is the
day that you were asked to submit the 52 answers to the
questions. It's a letter from me to the Ranking Member saying,
please note the EPW Committee does not require nominees to
respond to questions in advance of a hearing. And I know you'll
be responding to the written questions that will be submitted
by tomorrow night.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, could I just add a short
thing? That's a conversation between you and the Chairman, I
understand that. But again I would just reiterate, you have
received a lot of questions, including some that have been
unanswered that I had submitted 2 or 3 weeks ago. We need your
responses. We need your responses. And I hope the Chairman will
give you a reasonable amount of time to respond to those
questions, because there will be quite a few of them. They are
not going to be like multiple choice answers. They won't be
true and false. They will be more complete.
Thank you.
Senator Barrasso. Additionally, I am going to introduce for
the record an article from The Economist about mercury and the
Mercury Rule. And it is interesting that it says rulemaking is
being made to look more beneficial under Barack Obama, but it
goes to say, ``A casual listener would have assumed that all
these benefits came from reduced mercury. In fact, reduced
mercury explained none of the purported future reduction in
deaths, heart attacks and asthma, and less than 0.01 percent of
the monetary benefits. Instead, almost all the benefits came
from concomitant reductions in a pollutant that was not the
principal target of the Mercury Rule, namely, fine particles.''
And I will submit that for the record as we look at the
issues going into the future.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Barrasso. I want to thank all the members of the
Committee for your patience. I certainly want to thank the
nominee for his time and his testimony today. The hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:55 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[Additional information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]