    [Senate Hearing 115-79]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 115-79

                                BUSINESS MEETING

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               FEBRUARY 1-2, 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

    26-822 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 20402-0001

                   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

                               FEBRUARY 1-2, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...     3
    Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................    14
    Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......    15
    Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi...    17
    Ernst, Hon. Joni, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa............    17
    Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska.......    18
    Moran, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas.........    19
    Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska........    21
    Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota...    22

                                BUSINESS MEETING

                                  ----------

                     WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2017-THURSDAY,
                                FEBRUARY 2, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman,
    Wicker, Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, and Sullivan.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this business
    meeting to order.
        I have been informed that no Democrats will be in
    attendance this morning, in an effort to intentionally delay
    and obstruct the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to
    be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
        It is a disappointing turn of events. But let's review some
    history.
        On January 21st, 1993, EPA Administrator nominee Carol
    Browner, under Democrat President Bill Clinton, was confirmed
    by the Senate. This is 1 day after he took office.
        On January 30th, 2001, EPA Administrator nominee Christy
    Todd Whitman, under Republican President George W. Bush, was
    confirmed by the full Senate.
        On January 22nd, 2009, EPA Administrator nominee Lisa
    Jackson, under Democrat President Barack Obama, was confirmed
    by the full Senate, 2 days after he took office.
        Today is February 1st, and the minority has now obstructed
    even having a vote in Committee on President Donald Trump's
    nominee, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. I hope this is
    not the new normal.
        We cannot afford for the EPA to go without an Administrator
    for the foreseeable future. This will impact future EPA
    Administrator nominees. These precedents for this delay will
    likely have long-term impacts after today's nominee has left
    office.
        This boycott not only affects the EPA, but it also prevents
    this Committee from organizing. No one can complain about the
    Trump administration and its policies, if they sabotage the
    very formation of the Committee that is supposed to conduct the
    oversight.
        There are a number of consequences to not having a fully
    functional EPA and a fully functional Senate Environment and
    Public Works Committee. There are key issues for the EPA and
    the Senate EPW Committee that we could and should be working
    on, including Waters of the United States policy, cold war
    legacy pollution cleanup, addressing brownfields, and ensuring
    implementation of the new TSCA legislation, to name a few. None
    of this is made better by this boycott. This amounts to nothing
    more than political theater at the expense of working on issues
    that we care about.
        The Ranking Member and the minority have complained about
    the nomination process. Let's set the record straight.
        Attorney General Pruitt has been through an extremely
    thorough and fair process. I would like to read some quotes
    from the members of the minority who have praised the
    unprecedented hearing we had on the nominee while the hearing
    was occurring.
        The Ranking Member stated, ``I appreciate the way you've
    conducted this hearing today. I appreciate all the members
    coming and coming back again and again.''
        My colleague from New Jersey stated, ``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,'' he
    said, ``that we note that, and I appreciate the number of
    rounds that you are doing.''
        My colleague from Rhode Island stated, ``I think that you
    have been fair.''
        These members are correct. The hearing was fair. It was
    historic in its length of time for member questions of the
    nominee.
        Let's be clear. Attorney General Pruitt has answered more
    questions than any past EPA Administrator nominee in recent
    memory. He answered a total of more than 1,200 questions. He
    answered over 1,000 more questions than the EPA Administrator
    nominees for the incoming Obama, Bush, and Clinton
    administrations.
        The letter that the Ranking Member sent me, dated January
    30th, highlighted what he believed were a lack of substantive
    answers from the nominee. To that I would quote my colleague
    from Rhode Island in 2013, when he stated during the McCarthy
    nomination business meeting that ``it is not the minority's
    right to get nominees to agree with them in advance.'' The
    minority may not like all of Attorney General Pruitt's answers,
    but he has given them answers.
        Ranking Member Carper made a prescient prediction during
    the first nomination business meeting for Gina McCarthy in 2013
    when he said, ``Someday there will be a Republican president.''
    He said, ``Someday the Republicans are going to be in the
    majority in the Senate.'' He said, ``And that Republican
    president is going to have his or her cabinet in place.'' He
    said, ``I think you can nominate a Governor. A president
    nominates good people, honest people, hard working people. They
    ought to get at least a vote.'' He continued by saying, ``They
    ought to get a vote, and I think they ought to get our
    support.''
        Well, Mr. Pruitt ought to get at least a vote. He ought to
    get a vote. He ought to get our support.
        With that, I would recognize other members of the Committee
    who would like to speak.
        Senator Inhofe.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In case you were
    wondering why our audience looks a little more distinguished
    than normal, we are graced by the Oklahoma Wheat Growers
    Association, all of whom know the nominee personally.
        Thank you for the chance to get on the record, as we all
    want to do, concerning this nominee. He is a personal friend of
    those of us in Oklahoma, and he has gone beyond being
    responsive to this Committee. And I think it is important to
    get into the record, because we are making the record here,
    what he has actually been through.
        He went through four rounds of questions. That is more
    rounds than any other nominee in the recorded history of this
    Committee. In addition, he has answered 206 of our questions
    during that time. However, that was just the beginning of it
    because, once the hearing was over, our friends on the other
    side of the dais submitted 1,078 questions for the record.
        Now, the Chairman has talked about some of the previous
    nominees. In this case, during the Browner nomination, she had
    a total of 137 questions for the record. He had 1,078. During
    Christy Todd Whitman, she had 178 questions for the record. And
    when Lisa Jackson was here, she had only 133.
        So he had 1,078 questions for the record, including the
    extra questions from Senator Carper asked Pruitt, in his
    December 28th letter, as Pruitt promised he would. This means
    that he answered 1,000 more questions than any other
    Administrator nominee in the past three presidential
    administrations.
        Last week EPW--that is Environment and Public Works--
    Democrats held a shadow hearing inviting partisan
    environmentalists to talk to each other, including a former
    employee of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office under
    Pruitt's predecessor, who was sued and settled out of court for
    extreme workplace harassment. Great witness. Yet, even with all
    the unnecessary questions at the Democrat shadow hearing,
    Pruitt continued to talk with Ranking Member Carper by phone on
    Monday for 30 minutes, answering even more questions. I know
    about this phone call, and no questions were asked, none.
        Ranking Member Carper asked the same recusal questions
    posed at the January 18th nomination hearing, even though he
    has a letter from the EPA Career Ethics employee stating,
    ``Pruitt has satisfied all ethics requirements and has entered
    into the same recusal agreement as former Administrator Lisa
    Jackson.''
        The other side just happens not to like the answer.
        Now, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we have a
    letter entered into the record after my remarks.
        Ranking Member Carper complained that Pruitt's description
    of the Illinois River agreement was wrong. Pruitt has
    negotiated the first enforceable limit on phosphorous in the
    Illinois River. That is simply a fact.
        He complained about Pruitt's answers on whether EPA can
    control mercury from power plants, alleging Pruitt opposes it
    simply because he was on the winning side of the Michigan v.
    EPA legislation, where the Supreme Court found EPA didn't
    bother to consider the costs of EPA's own rules, contrary to
    law.
        Finally, he complained about the answers to only 9
    questions out of 1,078 questions where Pruitt had to refer to
    the process under Oklahoma's Open Records Act to get a
    comprehensive response to the questions. Here are some examples
    of the Democrat member's questions, and you can decide whether
    or not referral to the Open Records Act was appropriate.
        Senator Cardin, in his 29th question, Senator Cardin, who
    is not here today but a member of this Committee, he said,
    ``Please provide all communications you have had with
    representatives of agricultural and other companies regarding
    water quality litigation between Arkansas and Oklahoma.''
        Senator Carper's 119th question: ``For each listed matter
    in the State of Oklahoma has been a litigant or petitioner
    against the EPA, please provide any and all documents,
    including any and all written electronic correspondence, audio
    tapes, electronic records, video tapes, photographs, telephone
    messages, voicemails, e-mails, facsimiles, daily agendas, and
    calendars information about meetings and/or discussions,
    whether in person or over the phone, agendas, minutes, and a
    list of participants for those meetings and/or discussions, and
    transcripts and notes of any such meetings or discussions from
    the date on which your office first began to prepare the
    litigation at hand to the date of the letter between you or
    other employees in your office and each representative of each
    non-governmental entity with whom you or your office
    communicated about the litigation.'' That is all in one
    question. They are all part of the 1,078 questions.
        Senator Markey's 61st question: ``For each year since
    1995,'' that is 22 years of records, ``please provide
    information regarding the State of Oklahoma's environmental
    enforcement efforts, specifically descriptions of each
    environmental enforcement action, including investigations and
    enforcement proceedings initiated by the AGs,'' that is
    Attorney General's office, ``including the date of the action
    it was initiated, the name of the subject of the action and the
    nature of the action and environmental violation that led
    thereto, the annual budget and the number of employees, and''--
    this is still Senator Markey's 61st question--``describe each
    environmental enforcement action, including investigations and
    enforcement procedures that was closed, including a description
    of the resolution of the matter, whether a fine or penalty was
    levied and, if so, the amount of such fine or penalty, whether
    non-monetary remedies were required, and if so, what, and
    whether criminal prosecution was initiated in the matter, and
    if so, what the resolution to the prosecution was.'' That is
    the end of that question.
        Senator Whitehouse's 84th and 85th questions: ``Please list
    all matters you and your office have had with the U.S.
    Department of Interior or the EPA since you became Attorney
    General of Oklahoma. For the purpose of this and the following
    question's matters refer to lawsuits, including lawsuits in
    which your office filed a friend of the court brief,
    enforcement actions, investigations, rulemakings, and any other
    matter which included adjudication between parties.''
        Let me repeat that Scott Pruitt has answered 1,000 more
    questions than any other nominee in the last three presidential
    administrations, and Scott Pruitt went through four rounds of
    questions. That is more rounds of questions than anyone has had
    to be subjected to in the history of this Committee. So it is
    time, I think, that we move on and get him voted out, and he is
    going to make a great Administrator of the EPA and a refreshing
    change.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe, was there something you
    wanted to introduce to the record?
        Senator Inhofe. Oh, yes. I mentioned that earlier at this
    point in the record, and that is the letter I referred to.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Inhofe. Here it is.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Capito.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to
    strongly support Scott Pruitt's nomination to be the EPA
    Administrator. We need a functioning Environmental Protection
    Agency, and Americans deserve the change at the EPA that they
    voted for this fall.
        The American people are being denied this because of the
    Democrats' decision to boycott today's Committee business
    meeting. As has been mentioned, Scott Pruitt has been through a
    very thorough--and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that--
    incredibly thorough process. The gentleman from Oklahoma, I got
    exhausted just listening to the questions, but the Attorney
    General has answered over 1,200 questions by the time you add
    the written questions and the questions that were offered
    during the Committee hearing. No recent nominee for the EPA
    Administration has ever answered more questions, as we have
    heard.
        And I understand that my Democrat colleagues may not agree
    with Attorney General Pruitt's answers or with his philosophy,
    but disagreement with a nominee's position cannot justify a
    decision to boycott a scheduled Committee vote. Democrats
    should, instead, give the nominee the same consideration that
    has been given to the other nominees from both parties.
        As we heard, Carol Browner had a hearing January 11th and
    was confirmed on the 21st of January. Christy Todd Whitman, in
    2001, had her hearing on the 17th of January, was confirmed on
    the 30th. And in 2009 Lisa Jackson had a hearing on January
    14th and was confirmed on January 22nd, 2 days after the
    President's swearing in.
        Scott Pruitt's hearing was 2 weeks ago. He has been very
    visible and very open to questions. So today here we are,
    February 1st, later than the date of confirmation for his
    recent predecessors, and his nomination is continuing to avoid
    action in this Committee.
        And the Democrats are just wasting time with stunts like
    today's boycott. I found a quote that I had heard, and I kept
    looking it up, trying to figure out who to attribute it to, but
    80 percent of life is showing up. They are living on 20 percent
    of life right now. They are not even showing up. If a student
    doesn't show up, they flunk the class. If a worker doesn't show
    up, they get fired from their jobs.
        So our constituents elected us to do our job, and that
    includes coming to Committee hearings and voicing our opinions.
    They have had more than ample opportunity to hear from Attorney
    General Pruitt. Now is the time for this Committee to vote.
    Senators can vote yes or they can vote no; they can express
    their opinion. But failing to show up does not serve our
    constituents.
        Now, I agree with Senator Sanders, who is a member of this
    Committee, and we probably don't agree on a whole lot of other
    things, but he said, in 2013, ``When people have honest
    difference of opinion, we debate it.'' That is what Congress is
    made to do. But when the goal is simply obstructionism, I would
    draw this conclusion: We are not responding to the needs of the
    American people if there is not an EPA Administrator.
        So if the Democrats were present for this vote, we could
    debate our honest differences. I would point out, as I do every
    time, that there are tens of thousands of coal mining jobs in
    my State that have been lost in large part to EPA regulations.
    We could discuss the hardships of the misguided rules that have
    caused for farmers or natural gas workers or manufacturers. We
    could also talk about the great work that the EPA does to bring
    about clean air and clean water. And we could decide then if
    Scott Pruitt should be the next Administrator.
        I am very disappointed we are not going to have a two-sided
    debate here. He has a distinguished record of enforcing our
    environmental laws as they are written and working to protect
    clean air and clean water without unduly costing jobs and
    economic growth.
        I again commend the Chairman for the thorough confirmation
    process that he has conducted, and I look forward to voting in
    favor of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be our next EPA
    Administrator.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito. Thank you very
    much.
        Senator Boozman.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It truly is
    disappointing that members of our Committee are unable to come
    together to vote on the nomination of Attorney General Scott
    Pruitt for the position of Administrator of the EPA.
        I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle
    are not happy with the Trump administration and are doing
    everything possible to delay voting on many of his cabinet
    nominees. However, as then-Chairwoman Boxer, in 2007, stated,
    ``Elections have consequences.''
        The truth is that no one has been fairer or more patient
    than Chairman Barrasso. I urge my Democrat colleagues of the
    Committee to quit stalling a vote on the nomination. Attorney
    General Pruitt has been through a grueling nomination process
    and has done everything that has been asked of him. This
    includes answering more questions, as we have heard, than
    incoming nominees for the same position in the Obama, Bush, and
    Clinton administrations.
        Many of my Democratic friends will say he has not
    sufficiently answered many of their questions. I would like to
    point out there is a stark difference between not having a
    question answered and receiving an answer that you do not like
    or can't agree with. I would also add many of the 1,078
    questions for the record, which he answered in a timely
    fashion, were essentially the same questions he was asked at
    his nearly 6-hour-long hearing 2 weeks ago. It is unreasonable
    for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to expect a
    different answer to the same question.
        Here are the answers that matter:
        Attorney General Pruitt has agreed to be transparent in
    EPA's rulemaking process, something that the Obama
    administration refused to do.
        He has agreed to bring stakeholders and the private sector
    to the table when developing rules, assuring that everyone's
    voice will be heard.
        He has promised to be forthright with Congress and get us
    answers in a timely fashion whenever we have questions or
    concerns, something former Administrator McCarthy was unable to
    do while running the EPA.
        And last, he has promised to follow the rule of law,
    ensuring that the EPA will go back to its core mission,
    protecting the environment by carrying out the laws developed
    by Congress. This will ensure that the EPA will not become a
    political arm of the Trump administration.
        It is time for us to put aside partisan squabbles and vote
    on this very qualified and respected candidate to lead the EPA.
    Now is the time to roll up our sleeves and get to work.
    Attorney General Pruitt's responses to the questions put before
    him during the confirmation hearing earned the opportunity to
    be considered by the full Senate, and that begins with this
    Committee voting on his nomination.
        I know some of my colleagues aren't happy with who is in
    the White House, but President Trump is not only President for
    Republicans; he is the President of all American citizens, and
    deserves to have the people in place to help him do the job he
    was elected to do.
        In 2009 the full Senate approved seven of President Obama's
    cabinet nominees his first day in office. It is almost 2 weeks,
    and this chamber hasn't voted on seven of President Trump's
    nominees. Republicans have the votes necessary to confirm many
    of the Trump administration's nominees, and that worries the
    Democrats, who have fundamental differences with the new
    Administration.
        I can honestly say I understand why Democrats are upset. I
    was upset when President Obama was forcing rules and
    regulations down the throat of Congress. But I say to my
    Democrat friends, being in the minority in the Senate, House,
    and losing the White House does not mean your job is done. You
    have an incredible opportunity as an EPW member to keep the new
    Administration in check, to ensure Attorney General Pruitt
    keeps his word, is transparent and available to stakeholders
    and Congress. We need to work together rather than obstructing
    the will of the American people.
        Though it is not happening today, I am pleased to support
    Attorney General Pruitt's nomination in this Committee and
    allow our colleagues a vote on the Senate floor. Attorney
    General Pruitt is a strong candidate, and I look forward to
    working with him as the EPA Administrator.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Wicker.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I, too, support Scott Pruitt, and let me just say I think
    objective observers who watched his testimony would have to
    agree that it was an impressive display of knowledge and
    patience. Attorney General Pruitt demonstrated that he is
    intelligent, articulate, thoughtful, patient, and
    knowledgeable. And I think because of that he will eventually
    be confirmed.
        You know, we are going to get through this, and the people
    on the other side of the dais are friends of mine. I am
    disappointed in them today. And frankly, I was disappointed in
    their conduct during the hearing, taking a complicated issue
    and asking the witness to answer yes or no, yes or no, when we
    all know that those issues didn't call for a yes or no answer;
    putting up a poster of campaign contributors to the Republican
    Attorneys General Association and somehow suggesting that that
    impeached the ability of Attorney General Pruitt to be
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
        It was silly. It was beneath them. And again, we will get
    past this. But it was a disappointment to me, as friends of my
    colleagues on the other side.
        This action today by the Democratic members of this
    Committee is not about the qualifications of Attorney General
    Pruitt to be head of the EPA. It is simply about their
    disappointment with the results of the November election, pure
    and simple. And I would say to my colleagues, you are making
    yourselves look bad. And there were other statements that I was
    hearing on television last night, after the President made his
    Supreme Court nomination.
        We are ultimately going to be judged in the court of public
    opinion, and I think the American people are ready to put the
    election, the close election that we had in November, behind
    us, accept the results, and move forward to govern this nation.
    I am proud of this nominee. I am pleased that the President has
    put him forward. I am disappointed in my Democratic colleagues.
    But this nominee will be confirmed and we will move on.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker.
        Senator Fischer, thank you so much for deferring your time
    to Senator Ernst, who has an unavoidable scheduling conflict.
        Senator Ernst.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST,
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Thank you, Senator Fischer, very much.
        I would like to echo the same sentiments of many of my
    colleagues that are here today, and I would like to state for
    the record that this Committee and all Republicans in the
    Senate are committed to a fair and full confirmation process,
    and I know Chairman Barrasso has worked really hard to make
    sure that that is the case for Mr. Pruitt.
        Vetting nominees is an important role, and one that I take
    seriously, as do my colleagues. But there comes a point when
    vetting has been turned into obstruction, and that is what we
    are witnessing here today.
        Mr. Pruitt has answered more than 1,200 questions from this
    Committee. Twelve hundred questions. That is over 1,000 more
    answers than the incoming nominees for EPA Administrator from
    the last four administrations.
        Lisa Jackson, nominated by President Obama to be EPA
    Administrator at the start of his presidency, and viewed as a
    very controversial pick by many on this Committee, was asked
    202 questions; 202 questions compared to 1,200.
        So I would ask my colleagues on the other side what is the
    true purpose of their witch hunt. Because if the answer is to
    get more clarity on Mr. Pruitt's policy views or positions,
    Chairman Barrasso has given you an unprecedented amount of time
    and opportunity to get those answers, surpassing Committee
    standards set in 2003, 2005, 2009, and 2013. In fact, some of
    you even publicly acknowledge that you were pleased with how
    this Committee conducted the confirmation hearing.
        So I would remind my Democratic colleagues of their words
    in 2013, back when this Committee was considering Gina McCarthy
    and roles were reversed. Take, for example, Senator Cardin, who
    said, ``It has nothing to do with information not made
    available. It has everything to do with obstructionism.''
        Mr. Chairman, I am going to wrap up my comments here, but I
    would leave my colleagues on the other side with one final
    thought. Will they take the blame for an EPA that is not fully
    operational, heaven forbid, even if we have an environmental
    crisis?
        When people have honest differences of opinion, we debate
    it. But when the goal is simply obstructionism, I would draw
    this conclusion: ``We are not responding to the needs of the
    American people if there is not an EPA Administrator.'' And
    folks, those are not my words, those are the words that came
    from Senator Bernie Sanders from 2013.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        Senator Fischer.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you
    for your thorough hearing process that we had with Attorney
    General Pruitt. As you have said, we had unlimited rounds. Any
    number of questions were asked during the public hearing. We
    had given this man 1,200 questions to respond to, and he has.
    So I thank you for really going above and beyond what I have
    seen happen not just in this Committee, but any other committee
    here in the U.S. Senate, no matter if it is chaired by
    Republican or Democrat. So thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        I would also like to thank Attorney General Pruitt.
    Throughout the hearing, if you were able to watch it, he
    treated this Committee and he treated this process with the
    utmost respect. He had a very respectful demeanor. He answered
    every question, I believe, thoroughly; and if he was unable to
    answer at the time, he provided the information later.
        I know Oklahoma can be proud of the gentleman that we had
    before us. Not only was he respectful, but he was also
    articulate, and he spoke with a calmness and a surety when he
    gave us his answers. It was obvious how intelligent he is. It
    was obvious that he is well qualified for this position because
    of his not only vast experience, but his vast knowledge on many
    of these issues.
        It is disappointing that our Democrat colleagues are not
    here today doing their job, and that job is to be able to
    debate with us, to be able to discuss so that we can continue
    this open, transparent, and accountable process that every
    Senate Committee hearing should be. That is what it should be,
    that we continue to do that. But instead we are seeing
    filibustering now at the Committee level.
        You know, I have had many, many disagreements with the
    previous Administrator, but we always showed a mutual respect
    for each other. And when Administrator McCarthy came before
    this Committee, we would have frank conversations, we would
    have open conversations, and we did it in full view of the
    public so that every citizen had the opportunity to see what
    our discussions were. I thank our former Administrator for the
    respect that she showed this Committee. I thank her for the
    civility that all members of this Committee showed to her. And
    it is more than disappointing that we are not able to see that
    today.
        I don't believe that Americans want to see this from their
    representatives. Americans want all of us to be able to have
    respectful conversations and do so in a manner that promotes
    the values of this country, and that is that we respect each
    other, we continue to have dialogue, and we continue to work
    for the people of this country. So I hope that our colleagues
    on the other side, our Democrat colleagues, will come to the
    Committee so that we can show that respect for each other and
    the respect for the process and the respect for the U.S. Senate
    and the Government that we have in this country. And I hope
    that they will come before us so that we can get to work, so
    that they can get to work, because that is what the American
    people expect us to do. They expect us to do our jobs.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Moran.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS

        Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks
    for calling this meeting. I am sorry for the circumstances we
    find ourselves in. I would just like to make three points.
        First of all, I would like to compliment you and the way
    that you have conducted this process. I don't see how anyone
    could reach a conclusion that it has been anything but fair,
    appropriate, the way that a Senate committee should be
    conducted.
        Second, I would like to just comment briefly on the quality
    of the nominee. As a Kansan from a neighboring State, we hold
    people from the Midwest in high regard, and I found the
    Attorney General to fit the qualifications of an individual
    that I would find great comfort in. And his testimony here
    showed significant knowledge, information, experience, with
    also a practical side of how environmental regulations have
    huge consequences upon the opportunities that Americans have.
    How do we keep the American dream alive at the same time of
    keeping the environment clean and desirable?
        Many of us choose to live in the Midwest. I choose to live
    in Kansas for a number of reasons, but one is because the
    sunsets, the sky, the water. It is a beautiful place, and we
    all want it to be that way. We also know that we also need
    economic activity. We want our kids to have a chance to be
    raised on a farm, but also to become farmers. We want the
    opportunities to be available to all, and so we have to find
    the right balance, and I found the Attorney General's testimony
    very satisfactory in that regard.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, perhaps most importantly to me
    today, is one more example of the dysfunction of the U.S.
    Senate by the actions taken by our colleagues on this
    Committee. I have said this numerous times, mostly to Kansans.
    I don't think I have ever said it in public here, but I was
    elected to the U.S. Senate now 6 years ago, in 2010. There is
    absolutely nothing in my background that would suggest I would
    grow up to be a member of the U.S. Senate; nothing in my
    family, no particular qualifications other than I am an
    American citizen.
        And as some of you have heard me say, when I arrived at the
    U.S. Senate, I was welcomed to the Senate by the then-Majority
    Leader Harry Reid. And Senator Reid was very kind to me,
    welcomed me to the Senate. We were standing on the Senate
    floor, and he asked me how I liked being here, and I indicated
    to him how honored I was by Kansans giving me the chance to try
    to make a difference on their behalf.
        But I said, you know, Leader, sir, it doesn't seem to me
    like we are going to do anything. And Senator Reid's reply to
    me was, oh, Jerry, you just need to understand we are not going
    to do anything. And that was very disappointing, discouraging
    to me, again, from a sense--I don't mean this in any kind of
    personal accomplishment way, but to become a Member of the U.S.
    Senate by the grace of God, kindness of Kansans, only to
    discover that the plan was to do nothing.
        So for much of my time in the U.S. Senate I have been
    working on behalf of every Senator, Republican, Democrat, all
    100 of us, to have the sense that we have jobs to do and work
    to be done, and we all ought to have a chance to advocate on
    behalf of our constituents.
        I come from Kansas, and in many ways we may have different
    points of view than people who come from other places in the
    country. This country is a diverse place. The U.S. Senate is a
    place in which that diversity is overcome. It is a place in
    which the diversity of this country should be overcome. And it
    takes goodwill and common sense; a desire to accommodate other
    people's points of view; an understanding that someone may
    disagree with you, but it doesn't make them evil; an
    understanding that someone may disagree with you, but maybe you
    can learn something from that disagreement and modify your own
    position. But none of that can happen at the U.S. Senate, and
    today the example is this Committee doesn't function. So it is
    discouraging to see, once again, that we are in the mode of we
    are not going to do anything.
        I don't expect to win every battle, and I recognize that
    often my points of view, coming from where I come and the
    philosophy that I hold, is a minority point of view. But I
    certainly have the responsibility to advocate and hope that
    someday our point of view may be something that becomes a
    majority point of view. I don't expect success today, but I
    expect the opportunity to pursue success in the future.
        And if we can't even meet together, if we can't even have
    the debate, the discussion, ultimately votes taken, majority
    rules, then we never have the chance to convince each other
    that we are wrong or we are right, and we are missing something
    important to the legislative process. So it is just one more
    disappointment in a circumstance that we ought not face.
        Finally, I would say I have tried to set the expectations
    that so maybe after the next election, if we can just get
    through an election, maybe we can set aside the differences and
    then come together and govern. Maybe there is something that
    has to happen. Early in my time in politics people would say,
    well, we can't do it right now, there is an election coming
    around the corner. Usually that was a month or a few weeks out.
    Then over time it has become, well, there is an election this
    year; and now there is an election this cycle. We can't
    continue to use an election as the excuse for inability to do
    anything.
        And today we don't even have that as an excuse; the
    election is behind us. We have a new President to serve in
    office for the next 4 years, and we ought not stand for the
    inability for us to govern, to reach conclusions, make
    decisions based on the fact that this is politics. We have
    become, too often, governing by tantrum now, governing by sound
    bite, governing by press conference, and the governing needs to
    take place among Members of the U.S. Senate, and it can start
    right here with the Committee on EPW.
        Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the way you have
    conducted the hearing. I express my gratitude for a nominee who
    is willing to put himself and his family through the process of
    trying to serve his country. And I would ask all my colleagues,
    Republicans and Democrats, to find ways for us to solve
    problems by working together.
        I thank the Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Moran.
        Senator Rounds, thank you for your patience in deferring to
    Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA

        Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        I, too, want to express my appreciation for how you have
    run this hearing. I think it was probably the most thorough
    hearing for an EPA Administrator probably in U.S. history. It
    was done in a very respectful manner, and all the members, as
    you indicated, Democrats and Republicans, very much appreciated
    it.
        You know, sometimes in these hearings you can't make the
    hearing because you are out at another hearing, but just for
    the record, right before this hearing I was out in the hallway,
    and the vast majority of our colleagues were literally
    meandering in the hallway right in front of the hearing room.
    So I invited them to come in, and unfortunately, they politely
    declined. So it is not like they are busy. Literally kind of
    circling the hallway. A little embarrassing there.
        You know, Mr. Chairman, we have differences of opinion in
    this Committee. That is often a good thing. We debate them; we
    share ideas. We give the voters the very best we have, and then
    we let them make their own decisions, and on election day that
    is what happened. The people chose President Trump over
    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And when they did that,
    they did so knowing that he would appoint a new cabinet. And
    they voted for action, and they voted for a smooth transition,
    and they expected us in these committees to give us an open and
    fair and thorough nominating process, confirmation process for
    the members of the cabinet, and that is what you did, and that
    is what we all did.
        And I think as the hearing revealed, Attorney General
    Pruitt is highly qualified for the EPA Administrator job. The
    EPA needs a serious course correction after the lawless
    leadership of Gina McCarthy, and Mr. Pruitt has shown that he
    has the commitment, the intellect, the experience to lead this
    change, and I think that is going to be critical for America.
    It is certainly going to be critical for my State of Alaska.
        So, Mr. Chairman, what is going on here? As I noted at the
    outset, my colleagues are out literally meandering in the
    hallway. This is simply a senatorial temper tantrum. A
    senatorial temper tantrum. And as all the parents here know,
    temper tantrums waste a lot of energy, but they don't
    accomplish anything. The American people deserve better, and I
    ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come back
    to the Committee. Let's get to work.
        And here is the important thing that I think it is really
    important to recognize. Sometimes this Committee is viewed as a
    very partisan Committee. But this is a Committee that actually
    gets things done. And with the new head of the EPA we can do
    that in a bipartisan way. I am glad to see the former Chairman
    is here. My first 2 years in the Senate, this Committee was the
    most active Committee--TSCA, the highway bill, the WRDA bill,
    with Republicans and a Democrat in the White House, and we
    still got those things passed. So I would ask my colleagues to
    cease the temper tantrum. Let's get back to work, because it is
    important for the American people and that is what they want.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
        Senator Rounds.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a lot of
    things have already been said today that needed to be said by
    members of our party, the party which is actually showing up
    for this particular Committee hearing.
        I am going to be brief, but it comes to mind that a
    gentleman that led South Dakota, former Governor by the name of
    George Mickelson, used to say that things get done by people
    that show up. He didn't say things get done by people that
    don't show up or that are protesting.
        The reality is that our friends on the other side of the
    aisle--and we know them personally, they are good people--they
    have decided that this is a protest, and it is a protest
    because they are not going to receive a nominee that they
    wanted. When they lost the election, it was hard on them, and
    they are still feeling that pain, and because of that their
    protest here by not showing up slows down the work of the
    Senate. It won't stop the work of the Senate, but it does show
    one of the reasons why it is so hard to get lots of different
    things done that I think the American people really wanted to
    see get done.
        You know, Scott Pruitt is the Attorney General. He comes in
    with the qualifications clearly in a position to make changes
    within the Environmental Protection Agency that many of us
    wanted to see. He believes in sound science. He is one of the
    guys that understands that regulations really do impact the day
    to day lives of American citizens. He understands that State
    and local units of government should have a say in how those
    regulations are established.
        EPA, when it works correctly, works in a Federalist role,
    one in which they cooperate and coordinate with State and local
    units of government. I thought he would add value at the EPA,
    and I think in the future he will. Simply delaying the change
    in leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency does not
    help our country. I think for our friends on the other side of
    the aisle, when we were growing up, our mom and our dad used to
    tell us that it isn't one of those things that is appropriate
    to simply say, if I am mad at the game that is chosen, I will
    take my ball and go home, and yet that is kind of what we are
    seeing here. And it will change, but in the meantime, we have
    to work our way through this.
        I think we have to be the adults in the room. We have to
    act like adults in the room. I think we will follow the rules,
    but we will eventually approve Mr. Pruitt as the next
    Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency. But in
    the meantime it has slowed down the process within the U.S.
    Senate, a lot of things in which most Republicans and Democrats
    can agree on. Time on the floor of the Senate is extremely
    valuable, and it is one that I think Republicans and Democrats
    both agree that that time, when it is as valuable as what it
    is, can't be wasted.
        Unfortunately, what we are seeing from our colleagues is
    every opportunity that they can to slow down the work in the
    U.S. Senate continues. They have slowed down, they have
    declined in many cases to give time back even when they are
    done with the debate, and this is just one more glaring example
    of a dysfunction within this body that could really work better
    than what it does today.
        So I think rather than simply beating them up over this
    time and time again, we should simply remind them that I think
    we all know that there is a better way to get this stuff done,
    and simply not showing up for a Committee hearing is probably
    one of the more childish things and one of the more childish
    behaviors when it comes to protesting.
        I think the value here could have been, if they were on the
    other side of the aisle and simply pointed out their point of
    view, and if they disagreed or if they had reasons why Mr.
    Pruitt should not be identified as the next Administrator, to
    be able to come in and voice those and to lay out their
    arguments appropriately in opposition to our arguments in favor
    of him would have been a healthy discussion that would have
    been an example to young people across this country about the
    way that our Government should work, and that open and public
    debate and discourse, that is a healthy part of this process.
    But simply not showing up because you lost an election is
    probably not the most appropriate way to set an example for the
    next generation.
        So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge the way in
    which you have handled this series of Committee hearings, it
    has been fair. Mr. Pruitt has answered over 1,000 more
    questions than anybody else applying for this job has in the
    past. And it simply is clear that our friends on the other side
    of the aisle have chosen what I believe to be the wrong way to
    protest the loss of an election, and they have provided
    additional reasons to point out the dysfunction that sometimes
    occurs in what should be a very deliberative body in the U.S.
    Senate.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for what you have done
    to try to move this process forward.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds.
        I thank all the members for being here.
        I want to just close with stating that not having a vote on
    this nominee today, not organizing this important Committee is
    a shame. I believe no one is served, no environmental goal is
    achieved by the Democrats acting in this obstructionist way.
        I want to quote one of my colleagues from Oregon, on the
    other side of the aisle, when he stated, in May 2013, ``What we
    have today is an embarrassing dereliction of public
    responsibility.'' He said, ``And the word embarrassing doesn't
    capture the grave harm that is coming from members of this body
    deciding to abuse the advice and consent obligation that this
    body has, this Senate has under our Constitution.''
        To the members of this Committee, I tell you I pledge to
    move the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as
    expeditiously as possible.
        This Committee is in recess subject to the call of the
    Chair. Thank you very much.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the Committee was recessed,
    subject to the call of the Chair.]
        [Resuming Thursday, February 2, 2017]
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman,
    Wicker, Fischer, Sessions, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, and Sullivan.
        Senator Barrasso. The Committee is called to order.
        We are reconvening our business meeting to consider the
    nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be EPA
    Administrator, the Committee funding resolution, and the
    Committee rules.
        Yesterday, the minority members of the Committee chose to
    boycott this business meeting. It is disappointing that they
    chose that course of action, but we will not allow it to
    obstruct.
        As I stated yesterday, this Committee has conducted an
    extremely thorough and fair process of reviewing Attorney
    General Pruitt's nomination. That includes a hearing of
    unprecedented length, number of questions, and timely responses
    from the nominee. It is unprecedented for the minority to delay
    an EPA Administrator for an incoming President to this extent.
        We had an election last November, the people spoke, and now
    it is time to set up a functioning Government. That includes a
    functioning EPA. To do that, this Committee has to do its work.
        So at this time I ask for a motion to suspend Rules 2(a),
    4, and 8 of the Rules of the Environment and Public Works
    Committee for the duration of this business meeting.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        Senator Barrasso. Is there a second?
        Senator Capito. Second.
        Senator Barrasso. All those in favor, please say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Senator Barrasso. All opposed, say nay.
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Barrasso. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes
    have it, and Rules 2(a), 4, and 8 of the Rules of the Committee
    of the Environment and Public Works are suspended for the
    duration of this business meeting.
        At this time, I would like to call up Presidential
    Nomination 44, Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator
    of the Environmental Protection Agency.
        Could I have a motion to approve and report the nomination
    favorably to the Senate?
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Chairman, I so move.
        Senator Barrasso. Is there a second?
        Senator Wicker. Second.
        Senator Barrasso. On this matter I ask for a recorded vote.
    The Clerk will call the roll.
        The Clerk. Mr. Booker.
        Mr. Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Capito.
        Senator Capito. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Cardin.
        Mr. Carper.
        Mrs. Duckworth.
        Mrs. Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Gillibrand.
        Ms. Harris.
        Mr. Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Markey.
        Mr. Merkley.
        Mr. Moran.
        Senator Moran. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sanders.
        Mr. Sessions.
        Senator Sessions. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Sullivan.
        Senator Sullivan. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Whitehouse.
        Mr. Wicker.
        Senator Wicker. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Aye.
        The Clerk will report.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11.
        Senator Barrasso. The nomination of Attorney General Scott
    Pruitt to be EPA Administrator is approved and reported.
        Next, I would like to call up the Committee funding
    resolution, which funds the Committee from March 1st of this
    year through February 28th of 2019 in three financial periods
    reflecting the funding levels the Rules Committee assigned to
    the Committee.
        Do any Senators seek recognition to speak about this
    resolution?
        If not, could I have a motion to approve and report the
    resolution to the Senate?
        Senator Inhofe. I so move.
        Senator Barrasso. Is there a second?
        Senator Rounds. Second.
        Senator Barrasso. All those in favor, please say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Senator Barrasso. Opposed, nay.
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Barrasso. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes
    have it, and the Committee funding resolution is approved and
    reported.
        [The referenced information follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Next I would like to consider the
    Committee rules. Do any Senators seek recognition to speak
    about the Committee Rules?
        If not, could I have a motion to adopt the Committee rules
    for the 115th Congress?
        Senator Inhofe. I so move.
        Senator Barrasso. Is there a second?
        Senator Wicker. Second.
        Senator Barrasso. All those in favor, please say aye.
        [Chorus of ayes.]
        Senator Barrasso. Opposed, nay.
        [No audible response.]
        Senator Barrasso. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes
    have it. The Committee rules are adopted.
        [The referenced information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Let me make clear to everyone what just
    happened. Yesterday, the minority members of the Committee
    chose to boycott our business meeting because they do not
    support the nomination of Scott Pruitt. As we pointed out
    yesterday, elections have consequences, and a new President is
    entitled to put in place people who will advance his agenda,
    the agenda that the people voted for when they elected him
    President.
        Today we suspended several of the rules of the EPW
    Committee for this business meeting only. We took this
    extraordinary step because the minority members of the
    Committee took the extraordinary step of boycotting the
    business meeting to approve an EPA Administrator for an
    incoming Administration.
        We have been in consultation with the Senate
    Parliamentarian, and she has informed us that the procedure
    that we have followed today is proper under the Senate rules,
    and no point of order will lie against the Pruitt nomination.
    The minority has put us in this uncharted waters. Never before
    in the history of the EPA has a new President's incoming
    Administration's nominee been boycotted. The last three
    nominees for new incoming Administrations were all confirmed by
    the end of January.
        Yesterday, February 1st, the minority blocked even having a
    vote in Committee of the nominee. Attorney General Pruitt sat
    through the longest EPA nomination hearing in history and
    answered the most questions. The complaints about Attorney
    General Pruitt's answers to questions is simply a smoke screen.
        Let me be clear. The leadership of the minority chose to do
    a blanket boycott of many of the President's nominees in
    committees across the Senate, regardless of their merit. The
    minority wants political theater. The nation needs a new EPA
    Administrator. At the end of this meeting, the Committee rules
    will be back in full effect. I expect to conduct all further
    business of this Committee under those rules and hope that from
    this point forward we will be able to work together in a
    bipartisan manner.
        Before we adjourn, it is important to note that in 2009
    then-Chairman Boxer reported legislation from this Committee
    without meeting the quorum requirements under the Committee
    rules. With regard to boycott comparisons with Gina McCarthy's
    nomination, the EPW Republicans were not stopping President
    Obama from setting up his Government. Gina McCarthy was a
    second term nominee. President Obama's political appointees,
    including Gina McCarthy, were already at EPA advancing
    President Obama's agenda.
        This concludes our business meeting. I ask for unanimous
    consent for staff to make any technical corrections to any of
    today's measures. Without objection.
        This business meeting is concluded. The Committee stands
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m. the meeting was adjourned.]

                                     [all]