[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1230-S1238]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Scott Pruitt, of 
Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Scott Pruitt is the right person 
to run the Agency, and we need to confirm him.
  Over the past 8 years, the political leaders of the EPA have taken 
actions that have undermined the American people's faith in the Agency. 
They have pushed broad and sweeping regulations that have hurt our 
economy and have failed to protect our environment. These regulations 
include the so-called Clean Power Plan. This is a rule that will kill 
job growth in States like Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and my home State 
of Wyoming. These also include regulations defining the term ``waters 
of the United States.'' This was a classic example of Washington 
overreach. The Agency brought irrigation ditches, plowed farm fields, 
and even parking lot puddles under Federal control. With both of these 
rules, dozens of State governments have had to take Washington to 
court. Why? Well, to try to stop the crippling effects of these 
Washington-based regulations.
  The Agency's outrageous actions have extended beyond these rules and 
have had real consequences for many American families. According to the 
chamber of commerce, since 2008 this regulatory rampage by the EPA has 
destroyed 19,000 coal-mining jobs nationwide. In Kentucky, nearly 4 out 
of every 10 coal-mining jobs have disappeared over the past 8 years. 
Ohio and Pennsylvania have each lost more than 1,000 fossil fuel 
electric power jobs during the same period. In West Virginia, 5,200 
coal-mining jobs have vanished just since 2011.
  The total cost of all of this new redtape from the Environmental 
Protection Agency is more than $300 billion. The leadership at the EPA 
has failed. It has failed because a lot of their regulations are bad 
ideas.
  That is not the only way the political leaders at the Agency have 
failed; they have actually hurt people and damaged the environment 
directly. In 2015, more than 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater 
spilled into the river at the Gold King Mine in Colorado. The 
government Agency charged with protecting our environment actually 
caused this spill and poisoned a river. This was a direct result of 
negligence on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency. This 
plume of toxic liquid flowed downstream to New Mexico and polluted the 
Navajo Nation's main source of drinking water and irrigation water.
  In the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA then denied 
$1.2 billion in damage claims from the farmers, the Native American 
tribes, and small businesses impacted by the EPA's own negligence.
  In Flint, MI, old pipes and improperly treated water caused lead 
poisoning in children. When the leadership at the EPA learned of the 
issue, they failed to respond in a timely manner. The regional EPA 
administrator actually resigned following the incident.
  For the last 8 years, the political leaders of this Agency have been 
reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant. Change is badly needed at the 
Environmental Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt will be that change. 
Mr. Pruitt has served as attorney general in the State of Oklahoma 
since 2011--6 years. He has worked to protect the environment in his 
State, while also working for the benefit of all the people of 
Oklahoma.

  He has taken on polluters. He has worked across party lines to do it. 
When poultry farmers in Arkansas, a neighboring State to Oklahoma, were 
increasing phosphorous levels in the Illinois River that runs between 
the States, he worked with Arkansas' Democratic attorney general on a 
solution. They found a way to reduce pollution and establish permanent 
standards.
  Former Arkansas Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, called Pruitt 
a ``staunch defender of sound science and good policy as appropriate 
tools to protect the environment in his State.''
  Scott Pruitt also helped negotiate a water rights settlement between 
tribes in Oklahoma. The deal will help preserve scenic rivers and lakes 
so they can be enjoyed for generations to come.
  Scott Pruitt also stood up to industry when they caused pollution. 
That is why the entire Oklahoma congressional delegation has endorsed 
his nomination. He has been an advocate for the environment in 
Oklahoma, and he will be an advocate for the environment in Washington.
  When the EPA overstepped its mission, Attorney General Pruitt led the 
charge to rein in Big Government Washington overreach. Time after time, 
Scott Pruitt worked with other States to challenge the Agency when it 
exceeded its authority. Under his leadership, this Agency will respect 
the rule of law.
  Attorneys general from 24 States have endorsed Scott Pruitt as 
someone who can protect the environment while also protecting State 
decisionmaking. He has also won the support of small businesses and 
farmers around the country. Groups like the National Federation of 
Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Home Builders, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and 
many others have voiced their support for Mr. Pruitt.
  As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I take the 
nomination process very seriously. Our committee thoroughly vetted Mr. 
Pruitt. We held a confirmation hearing that lasted more than 6 hours. 
That is by far the longest confirmation hearing for an EPA 
Administrator on record.

[[Page S1231]]

During this hearing, Attorney General Pruitt was asked more than 200 
questions by Members of the committee. We had four rounds of 
questions--an unprecedented number. Our Democratic colleagues on the 
committee noted during the hearing how fair the process was. They said 
how much they appreciated the opportunity to ask so many questions. 
After the hearing, committee members submitted another 1,078 written 
questions to Mr. Pruitt to answer for the record. Again, this is the 
most ever for a nominee to be Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. His answers were thoughtful, and they were thorough. 
That is why I was very disappointed to see the Democrats on the 
committee decide to boycott the meeting to vote on the Pruitt 
nomination.
  The minority complained that he didn't answer enough questions. 
Democrats have even complained that he has not been vetted thoroughly 
enough. That is ridiculous. Scott Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted 
nominee we have ever had to lead this Agency. Democrats are using 
delaying tactics to slow down the confirmation of many of this 
administration's most important nominees. These boycotts and delay 
tactics do nothing to protect our environment or the health of 
Americans. Democrats are engaged in nothing more than political 
theater. They are wasting time while the Environmental Protection 
Agency needs a new Administrator.
  Attorney General Pruitt has protected the environment in his home 
State. He is endorsed by his peers, and he has been thoroughly vetted 
for the job. He will make an excellent EPA Administrator. It is time 
for the Senate to confirm him.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the following items in support of Mr. Pruitt's 
nomination: First are two op-eds I authored, one is from FOX News that 
is entitled ``For Eight Years, the EPA Has Made Life Hard for Too Many 
Americans. That's About to Change.''
  The second is from USA TODAY, entitled: ``The Strong Leader the EPA 
Needs.''
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some other 
items: a letter from Dustin McDaniel, Democrat and Arkansas former 
attorney general. In the letter, he writes that he ``saw firsthand how 
Attorney 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 positive and historic.''
  Another item for the Record is a letter from 24 State attorneys 
general who wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt's qualifications.
  Also for the Record is a letter I received from J.D. Strong. He is 
the director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. In 
the letter, Mr. Strong directly refutes a New York Times article titled 
``Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA Pick, Backed Industry Donors over 
Regulators.''
  Mr. Strong writes:

       As a fifth generation Oklahoman and someone who has devoted 
     my career to natural resource protection, I take great pride 
     in the progress that has been made in improving Oklahoma's 
     land, air, water, and wildlife resources.

  He goes on to say--

       For the past six years, General Pruitt has been 
     instrumental in many of our successes and never asked me to 
     compromise regulatory efforts to benefit industry.

  Also, I would like to include in the Record an op-ed by Ed Fite, the 
former agency administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. 
He writes:

       Scott Pruitt is one who is committed to finding a balance 
     that protects and preserves our environment while at the same 
     time affords an opportunity for a robust economy to exist. 
     Achievement of one doesn't have to be exclusive of the other.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [FoxNews.com, Jan. 17, 2017]

  Sen. Barrasso: For 8 Years the EPA Has Made Life Hard for Too Many 
                   Americans. That's About To Change

                     (By Sen. John Barrasso, M.D.)

       Seventy-five thousand dollars per day. That's how much the 
     Environmental Protection Agency threatened to fine a private 
     land owner in my home state of Wyoming. The crime: digging a 
     pond in his back yard.
       This was an appalling overreach by the Obama 
     administration's EPA and its regulation of American's 
     property.
       Sadly, this story is not unique.
       For the past eight years, the EPA has abused and attacked 
     far too many hard-working American families.
       A regulatory rampage by EPA has led to the loss of 
     thousands of coal mining jobs in Wyoming, West Virginia, 
     Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
       Wisconsin is poised to lose more than 20,000 jobs in the 
     next decade because of the Obama administration's proposed 
     regulations on carbon emissions.
       The misguided obsession of the EPA has created needless 
     economic burdens for Americans. It has, at the same time, put 
     people's health in danger.
       Negligence on the part of the EPA resulted in more than 3 
     million gallons of toxic wastewater being dumped into a river 
     at the Gold King Mine in Colorado.
       The plume of toxic liquid flowed downstream to New Mexico 
     and polluted the Navajo Nation's main source of drinking and 
     irrigation water.
       In Flint, Michigan, aging pipes and improperly treated 
     water caused lead poisoning in children. When EPA officials 
     learned of the pending disaster, they failed to respond.
       The agency's misplaced priorities are harming state 
     governments as well.
       North Dakota stands to lose more than $100 million in tax 
     revenue over the next four years because of the Obama 
     administration's ``clean power plan'' regulations. The state 
     will have to look to already-strapped families to make up the 
     difference or else cut back on services.
       Disregard for the consequences of its actions has become 
     the trademark of the EPA for the last eight years. Policy 
     goals and talking points have consistently taken priority 
     over American families. This cannot be the case any longer.
       As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works, I look forward to ushering in wholesale change 
     at the EPA. I will be doing it alongside a committed and 
     capable administrator.
       President-elect Trump has named Oklahoma Attorney General 
     Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA and to overhaul the agency. 
     Attorney General Pruitt has seen the effects of over 
     regulation in his own state and has worked to stop them.
       Pruitt has distinguished himself by challenging the Obama 
     administration on several of its most burdensome rules. He 
     stood up for Oklahomans against the EPA's extreme regulations 
     on greenhouse gasses, methane emissions, and cross state air 
     pollution. He took action against unworkable water rules and 
     air standards. He sued the federal government to make sure 
     that it was interpreting the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts 
     as Congress actually wrote them, not how it benefited 
     President Obama's political agenda.
       Attorney General Pruitt is respected by his peers for the 
     work he has done. His work in Oklahoma protected the 
     environment and strengthened the economy by standing up for 
     states' rights. Attorneys general from 24 states authored a 
     letter in support of his nomination. They know he can and 
     will rein in Washington.
       President-elect Trump has vowed that his administration 
     will overturn two federal regulations for every new one it 
     proposes. The administrator of EPA will play a vital role in 
     keeping that promise. He must make sure that the agency meets 
     its mission of protecting our environment--ensuring clean 
     water, air, and land--while allowing our economy to grow.
       Our committee is taking up the nomination of Attorney 
     General Pruitt this week. I look forward to hearing more 
     about his vision for the agency and how he will help get 
     Americans back to work.
       The EPA has made the last eight years hard for families in 
     Wyoming and across rural America. Today, there is reason to 
     be hopeful.
       The status quo at the EPA is changing.
                                  ____


                   `The Strong Leader the EPA Needs'

                           (By John Barrasso)

       The Environmental Protection Agency needs reform.
       Anyone who doubts the deterioration at this once-respected 
     agency should recall the summer of 2015, when the EPA spilled 
     more than 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a 
     Colorado river.
       Last month, the EPA denied $1.2 billion in damage claims 
     from farmers, Native American tribes and small businesses. 
     This disaster followed the EPA's mishandling of the water 
     crisis in Flint, Mich.
       The government agency responsible for protecting the 
     environment and the health of Americans has been endangering 
     the public's health.
       The EPA has become a bloated regulatory behemoth that has 
     lost sight of the needs of the American people and the 
     environment. The agency's bureaucrats have been more 
     preoccupied with pushing punishing new regulations.
       This red tape killed thousands of jobs in energy-producing 
     and manufacturing states such as West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
     Kentucky, Indiana, North Dakota and my state of Wyoming.
       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President Trump's 
     nominee to lead the EPA, is committed to protecting the 
     environment--ensuring clean air, water and land--while 
     allowing the American economy to grow.

[[Page S1232]]

       Pruitt will be the strong leader the EPA needs. He has seen 
     the consequences of the agency's overreach, and he has worked 
     to restore its original focus. He negotiated a water rights 
     settlement with tribes to preserve scenic lakes and rivers.
       He worked with Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat and former 
     Arkansas attorney general, to reduce pollution in the 
     Illinois River, which flows between their two states. He 
     stood up to oil and gas companies that polluted his state's 
     air and water. Pruitt has won bipartisan recognition and 
     support. McDaniel called him a ``staunch defender of sound 
     science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the 
     environment.''
       Scott Pruitt will be an excellent EPA administrator, 
     committed to reform.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Alabama,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                  Montgomery, AL, January 4, 2017.
     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, District of Columbia.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, District of Columbia.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: As the 
     attorneys general of our respective states, we write to 
     express our unqualified support for our colleague and the 
     Attorney General of Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, as 
     Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       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.
       As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt developed 
     expertise in environmental law and policy. He negotiated a 
     historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes that 
     preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers; he 
     worked with his Democrat counterpart in Arkansas to reduce 
     pollution in the Illinois River; and he represented the 
     interests of Oklahomans in rate cases against utility 
     companies and in numerous actions against those who 
     contaminated his state's air and water.
       Attorney General Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean 
     water, and to faithfully executing the environmental laws 
     written by Congress. He believes that environmental 
     regulations should be driven by State and local governments--
     a notion endorsed by Congress in the Clean Air Act and Clean 
     Water Act. When our nation is confronted with issues 
     affecting the environment that are not covered by a 
     particular statute, Scott will come to Congress for a 
     solution, rather than inventing power for his agency. He 
     wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection 
     Agency that carries out its proper duties, providing a 
     backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 
     environmental regulations suited to the needs of their own 
     communities.
       Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney 
     general, he is also our friend. A man of deep faith who is 
     committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks 
     always to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership 
     have been invaluable to us over the years.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     plays a critical role in our Nation's government. Attorney 
     General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career that 
     he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to 
     serve as the Administrator of the EPA. We urge the Senate to 
     confirm his nomination.
           Sincerely,
       Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; Alan 
     Wilson, Attorney General, State of South Carolina; Luther 
     Strange, Attorney General, State of Alabama; Marty Jackley, 
     Attorney General, State of South Dakota; Patrick Morrisey, 
     Attorney General, State of West Virginia; Adam Laxalt, 
     Attorney General, State of Nevada; Mark Brnovich, Attorney 
     General, State of Arizona; Herbert Slatery, Attorney General, 
     State of Tennessee.
       Curtis Hill, Attorney General, State of Indiana; Brad 
     Schimel, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin; Ken Paxton, 
     Attorney General, State of Texas; Bill Schuette, Attorney 
     General, State of Michigan; Doug Peterson, Attorney General, 
     State of Nebraska; Chris Carr, Attorney General, State of 
     Georgia; Sean Reyes, Attorney General, State of Utah; Wayne 
     Stenehjem, Attorney General, State of North Dakota.
       Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Pam 
     Bondi, Attorney General, State of Florida; Lawrence Wasden, 
     Attorney General, State of Idaho; Tim Fox, Attorney General, 
     State of Montana; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, State of 
     Kansas; Josh Hawley, Attorney General, State of Missouri; 
     Peter Michael, Attorney General, State of Wyoming; Mike 
     DeWine, Attorney General, State of Ohio.
                                  ____

                                               McDANIEL RICHARDSON


                                              & CALHOUN, PLLC,

                                Little Rock, AR, January 18, 2017.
     Re Attorney General Scott Pruitt's Nomination To Serve as 
         Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members 
     of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: My 
     name is Dustin McDaniel. I am an attorney in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas. I served as the Democratic Attorney General of the 
     Stale of Arkansas from 2007-2015. During that time, I served 
     for three years as the Co-Chair of the Democratic Attorneys 
     General Association, I am a member of the Democratic National 
     Committee and was a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton's 
     campaign for President. I am grateful for your work on this 
     committee. I believe in the core mission of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. I believe that climate change is real and 
     overwhelmingly the result of human activity. I believe that 
     the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in 
     shaping climate policy. These challenges in a hostile 
     political environment will be acutely felt by the next 
     director of the EPA.
       As you consider the nomination of my friend Scott Pruitt, I 
     respectfully ask that you enter this letter into the record 
     so that I may attempt to clarify what I believe to be unfair 
     criticisms of the historic agreement negotiated between 
     myself on behalf of the State of Arkansas and Attorney 
     General Pruitt on behalf of the State of Oklahoma regarding 
     water quality in the Illinois River watershed.
       Prior to the elections of General Pruitt or myself, 
     Oklahoma grappled with Arkansas municipal water systems and 
     Arkansas industry, primarily poultry companies, over 
     increased phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed. 
     Pollution was substantially impacting the water quality in 
     one of Oklahoma's most scenic waterways. In 2003, an 
     agreement was executed that would require that the phosphorus 
     levels be reduced over the next 10 years to a level .037 
     parts per million. As a result, all parties on both sides of 
     the state line worked diligently to substantially improve the 
     water quality.
       At the same time, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Drew 
     Edmondson filed suit using an out of state plaintiffs' firm 
     against Arkansas's poultry industry. Many criticized the 
     litigation as taking the focus away from the environment and 
     placing it on money damages. The State of Oklahoma's outside 
     counsel presented their case to U.S. District Court Judge 
     Gregory Frizzell. Almost all the claims were dismissed by the 
     court. The evidence was fully submitted to the judge in March 
     of 2010 on the remaining question regarding injunctive 
     relief. To this day, no ruling in that litigation has been 
     handed down,
       As 2013, the ten-year deadline for the reduced phosphorus 
     levels, was approaching, two things were evident: 1.) despite 
     huge improvements in water quality, the phosphorus levels in 
     the river would not be at .037 parts per million before the 
     deadline, and 2.) research into the standard itself called 
     into question its origin and basis in hard science.
       The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma were facing a point of 
     litigating against one another (again) over this issue to the 
     detriment of all concerned, I approached General Pruitt to 
     ask if we could reach a solution that would protect the 
     environment and demonstrate to our citizens that we were 
     committed to working together on their behalf rather than 
     litigating against one another using taxpayer dollars for 
     lawyers instead of scientists.
       The resulting agreement reflects that Oklahoma enhanced, 
     not relaxed, its enforcement of environmental protections. 
     Scientists were appointed to establish the proper water 
     quality metrics, establish a binding standard, and at no time 
     were phosphorous abatement measures relaxed. It was an 
     historic moment that demonstrated that cooperation in pursuit 
     of environmental protection yielded better results than 
     litigation. The resulting report was recently released from 
     the commission and is available for your review, (See, 
     www.ok.gov/conservation/documents/IR%20 
     2016.12.19%20Final%20Report.pdf)
       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.
       As I am sure that this committee will have questions about 
     this matter, I wanted to take this opportunity to add facts 
     and context to an accomplishment that should stand as a 
     credit to General Pruitt's career and qualifications for this 
     nomination.
       I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this 
     letter to you and to your committee and to be a part of the 
     record in these proceedings. I thank you for your service to 
     our nation,
           Respectfully submitted,
                                                  Dustin McDaniel.

[[Page S1233]]

     
                                  ____
                                            Oklahoma Department of


                                        Wildlife Conservation,

                              Oklahoma City, OK, January 15, 2017.
     Re Debunking New York Times article, ``Scott Pruitt, Trump's 
         E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators,'' 
         January 14, 2017.

     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: Rarely do 
     I feel compelled to respond to a newspaper article, 
     particularly one that runs in a nationally renowned news 
     outlet like the New York Times. I've learned over 23-years as 
     a State environmental regulator to value the media's role in 
     uncovering and exposing the truth, not to mention the wisdom 
     found in the quote, ``Never pick a fight with anyone who buys 
     ink by the barrel.'' However, the mistruths propagated by the 
     above captioned article undoubtedly caught the attention of 
     you, your fellow committee members, and many of your 
     respective constituents just days before Attorney General 
     Scott Pruitt's confirmation hearing for EPA Administrator, 
     and thus deserve a response from at least one of the 
     regulators that allegedly lost out to industry donors.
       First, it's worth noting that I spoke with the New York 
     Times for nearly fifteen minutes laying out the facts from my 
     perspective as Oklahoma's former Secretary of Environment and 
     a plaintiff in the state's litigation against the poultry 
     industry, then later as Director of the Oklahoma Water 
     Resources Board--the agency responsible for establishing the 
     phosphorus standard referenced in the article. One would 
     think such experience deserves significant play in an article 
     of this focus, yet more column space was devoted to a retired 
     employee of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 
     who was incorrectly listed as the leader of the agency's 
     Water Quality Division and wrongfully given credit for being 
     responsible for ``overseeing the poultry-related cleanup.'' 
     The poultry industry and its related cleanup are governed by 
     our Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry. 
     Rather than insinuating that Mr. Derichsweiler retired out of 
     frustration with General Pruitt, instead of the fact that he 
     retired after 40 years of service to the State, the New York 
     Times should have at least divulged that Derichsweiler 
     currently serves as Vice Chair of the Oklahoma Chapter of 
     Sierra Club, an organization that has launched a campaign to 
     oppose General Pruitt's confirmation.
       The facts that I shared in my interview with the New York 
     Times paint a completely different picture than the article 
     portrays. If I were writing the headline, it would read, 
     ``Pruitt Helps Deliver Water Quality Improvement in 
     Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers.'' At the end of the day, that has 
     been Oklahoma's goal in the Illinois River watershed for 
     decades, and that is what is happening during General 
     Pruitt's term as Attorney General. As I stated to the New 
     York Times, no State Attorney General can force a Federal 
     Judge to rule, or I'm certain former Attorney General Drew 
     Edmondson would have taken such action during his last two 
     years in office. Rather than beating his head against that 
     wall, Pruitt helped Oklahoma negotiate a new agreement with 
     the State of Arkansas that prompted not just a study of the 
     appropriate phosphorus level necessary to protect our shared 
     scenic rivers, which the article dismissed as trivial, but 
     more importantly provided for continued phosphorus controls 
     on wastewater and poultry facilities. For the first time in 
     my career, Oklahoma measured decreasing phosphorus levels and 
     water quality improvement in the Illinois River watershed 
     beginning in 2012. While many people on both sides of the 
     border deserve credit for this result, General Pruitt 
     definitely was a key player. This mere ``study'' ultimately 
     led to a recent agreement between the states of Arkansas and 
     Oklahoma wherein Arkansas committed to meet a more stringent 
     phosphorus standard--another shocking development for two 
     states that have quarreled for decades and quite the opposite 
     result one would expect from an Attorney General that is 
     being unfairly maligned as a shill for industry.
       Rather than spend several more pages contesting the 
     inaccuracies found in the New York Times article, I will 
     leave you with this overarching truth. As a fifth generation 
     Oklahoman and someone that has devoted my career to natural 
     resource protection, I take great pride in the progress that 
     has been made in improving Oklahoma's land, air, water and 
     wildlife resources. For the past six years, General Pruitt 
     has been instrumental in many of our successes and has never 
     asked me to compromise regulatory efforts to benefit 
     industry. 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 protections, Please do not confuse Pruitt as 
     being anti-environment because of his well justified (and 
     strongly supported by me) efforts to counter the EPA's 
     various attempts to second-guess or usurp State authority. 
     Rather, he has been a strong ally in defending our ability to 
     continue the great progress that we've made in protecting 
     Oklahoma's environment at the state level--progress that is 
     too often impeded by Federal overreach and interference.
       If I can be of further assistance as you embark on your 
     important task of reviewing Mr. Pruitt's qualifications and 
     disposition to serve as EPA Administrator, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me. I've always found Mr. Pruitt to be a 
     man of great honesty and integrity, so you should have the 
     perfect opportunity in your hearing to gather facts before 
     making your final decision. If truth prevails, you will find 
     what most of us in Oklahoma know to be true: Scott Pruitt 
     stands for responsible, common sense, State-led environmental 
     protection efforts that generate positive results.
           Respectfully,
                                                      J.D. Strong,
     Director.
                                  ____


                            [Jan. 12, 2017]

A Firsthand Perspective From a Man in the Middle: Pruitt Nomination is 
                                Welcome

                              (By Ed Fite)

       We have all heard much yammering, left and right, about 
     President-elect Donald Trump having selected Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next head of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency. As a conservationist and 
     riverologist, I have worked firsthand with Scott Pruitt and 
     know a good deal more about him than those nationally that 
     are attempting to malign him.
       I have made it my life's work and my career to look after 
     our states designated Scenic Rivers. As a state employee and 
     a resource facilitator (I cannot take care of these valued-
     treasured water resources by myself), I always find myself 
     arguing for the middle ground, for the workable solution upon 
     which both sides of an issue can agree. I have looked and 
     worked for real solutions, and have implemented them with 
     help from all sides.
       I have found that General Pruitt has always done right by 
     our Scenic Rivers. He has done every constructive thing that 
     he told me he would do. Furthermore, for the first time ever, 
     he has gotten the State of Arkansas, which happens to have 
     portions of the streams we've 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 impact of which cannot be 
     understated. Instead of engaging in years of inter-state 
     litigation, he did this by negotiating an agreement with 
     Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a practical and 
     economical approach that will yield enormous environmental 
     benefits.
       To understand the magnitude of this agreement, one must 
     consider that Oklahoma and Arkansas have litigated over 
     Illinois River water quality for more than three decades. The 
     latest action brought by Oklahoma, about abating water 
     quality degradation from the land-application of poultry 
     waste in the Illinois River watershed, has languished for 
     more than six years in the federal district court. Many 
     thought that when General Pruitt took office he would abandon 
     this suit because he is also known for his staunch support of 
     farming and ranching communities. However, not only did 
     General Pruitt allow the case to be fully litigated, he 
     proactively sought this joint state solution to let science 
     determine the phosphorus standard for the Illinois River. In 
     the end, a study conducted by Baylor University reinforced 
     that the phosphorus standard Oklahoma sought to protect would 
     remain.
       Last, I have not seen him advocate dismantling the EPA. 
     Rather, he has rightfully supported necessary laws but has 
     challenged the agency when they have written new rules 
     without Congress having given them authority to do so. An 
     administrative agency should not decide what the law is in 
     the absence of legislation.
       And so, my middle-of-the-river view is that Scott Pruitt is 
     one who is committed to finding a balance that protects and 
     preserves our environment while at the same time affords an 
     opportunity for a robust economy to exist. Achievement of one 
     doesn't have to be exclusive of the other.

  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I just want to follow up on the comments 
of my friend, the chairman from Wyoming, and I note that Scott Pruitt 
has responded to more questions than anyone in EPA history since Gina 
McCarthy, the past Administrator who responded to more than 1,400 
questions, and she actually responded to them completely, not evasively 
and not indirectly. She needed more time, given the volume of 
questions, and more time was granted so she might more fully answer the 
questions that were raised. I just wanted to add that if I could.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor to share with you and with our 
colleagues the reasons I oppose the nomination of Attorney General 
Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator. Over the last month, we have 
had a number of President Trump's nominees come before the committee 
and be debated on the Senate floor, as you know.
  We have had multiple confirmation hearings in a single day, with 
Members

[[Page S1234]]

running to and from hearings trying to learn more about nominees and 
get important questions answered. So I understand if some of my 
colleagues who have attended back-to-back hearings have not yet delved 
into Scott Pruitt's record as deeply as we have on the Environment and 
Public Works Committee, and that is why we are here today.
  As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I, 
along with my colleagues on the committee, have scoured Mr. Pruitt's 
record to the best of our ability with the somewhat limited information 
the nominee has provided.
  We sat through his nomination hearing, where we asked him fundamental 
questions about his views on the role of the EPA and what he would do 
to protect our environment and public health. We submitted additional 
questions we had for the record and read through all of Mr. Pruitt's 
responses. We have done our due diligence with the information we 
received, and I want to share with my colleagues and all of those 
watching exactly why, based on this review, I cannot support Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination.
  First, I think it is important to revisit just why the EPA is still 
so critical. This Agency was created 46 years ago by a Republican 
President named Richard Nixon with the support of a bipartisan 
Congress. Their task was 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, 
and, by and large, the EPA has done it successfully--not perfectly but 
successfully for decades while our economy has continued to grow. Many 
people may not remember a time before the EPA, a time when States had 
to work individually to protect citizens in 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 United 
States 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 almost for 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 EPA and its employees, in 
partnership with State and local governments and with countries and 
companies and businesses across America. The EPA and its many partners 
throughout the country have been so successful that it is easy for some 
of us to forget why this Agency is so critical. Some may presume there 
is not much more for this Agency to do. That could not be further from 
the truth.
  The environmental threats we face today are real. They don't respect 
State boundaries. Over time, my State of Delaware has made great 
strides in cleaning up our own air pollution, but our work only goes so 
far.
  In Delaware, like many States on the east coast, we sit at the end of 
what is known as America's tailpipe. Ninety percent of the pollution in 
Delaware comes from outside the First State, from plants hundreds of 
miles away in places like Kentucky, Ohio, my native West Virginia, 
Indiana, and throughout 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 our roads, Delawareans would still 
face deadly doses of air pollution. Should Delawareans be forced to 
live with consequences of decisions made by polluters hundreds or even 
thousands of miles away from us? I don't think so. I don't think so. 
That is not the Golden Rule I know.
  Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something called the 
good neighbor rule to make sure all States do their fair share to clean 
up our air. Every citizen in this country has a right to breathe clean 
air, regardless of where they live, whether they live in a downwind or 
an upwind State. That is why we have the EPA.
  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 know mercury is a powerful neurotoxin 
that accumulates in our 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, where I grew up 
alongside the Dan River, and thousands of other communities that can 
once again eat fish from our rivers, lakes, and streams without concern 
of mercury poisoning. That is 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 water 
protections. Improvements to infrastructure are often ignored, corners 
are cut, and solutions are adopted that may save dollars now but 
inflict costly unnecessary damage later.
  As we have seen most recently in the city of Flint, MI, these cuts 
can have a terrible and even tragic impact on the health of the most 
vulnerable in our society, especially on the youngest among us. Today, 
the citizens of Flint still lack clean drinking water, and a new 
generation in that city which has been exposed to high levels of lead 
faces an uncertain future. That is why we have the EPA.
  Many people don't know it, but Delaware is the lowest lying State in 
our Nation. The highest point in the State of Delaware 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 almost every single day. Tackling that challenge is not 
just the right thing to do or what is best for Delaware's economy, it 
is a matter of survival. 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--every State--must do its fair share to safeguard our 
climate and their neighbors. That is why we have the EPA.
  Examples of the 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 is why we have the EPA.
  Throughout my years in the Senate and as a member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I have had the opportunity to consider the 
credentials of five different nominees to serve as EPA Administrator--
individuals put forth by both Democratic and Republican Presidents. I 
have supported candidates in the past because they were able to clearly 
demonstrate their commitment--candidates like former New Jersey 
Republican Governor Christine Whitman and former Utah Governor Mike 
Leavitt. I was proud to support them both, proud of their service, and 
proud of their role as head of EPA. But I have supported candidates 
like them because they clearly demonstrated their commitment to 
advancing the mission of the EPA--the mission to protect human health 
and to protect our environment. Never have I been forced to consider a 
candidate to lead the EPA who has been so focused throughout his career 
on crippling the Agency he now seeks to lead or so hostile to the basic 
protections to keep Americans and our environment safe.
  So, with that, I am going to close, and I will come back many times 
in the hours to come as we continue the consideration of this 
candidate's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am here to address an issue that I 
think is of great importance to this country and to this 
administration; that is, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the new 
EPA Administrator.
  We are nearly 8 years removed now from what we consider--many of us, 
I think, particularly as we look back--the great recession. However, 
many American workers, their families, and their communities have yet 
to feel the benefits of any kind of a recovery. A key component to a 
slow recovery--the

[[Page S1235]]

slowest recovery since World War I--is the regulatory overreach coming 
out of this city--Washington, DC.
  Since the end of the recession in June 2009, Federal agencies have 
burdened a weakened economy with thousands of pages of new rules, 
costing consumers billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of workers 
have lost their jobs. The EPA has perhaps become the poster child for 
this overreach, from restricting carbon emissions without the direction 
of Congress--and according to the clean air direction of Congress of 
what is important--to federalizing every stream, every pond, every 
wetland under the waters of the United States rule, to unilaterally 
banning virtually Appalachian coal mining by obstructing the permitting 
process and pursuing ozone standards that the vast majority of the 
country cannot meet. The vast majority of the country is still trying 
to meet the ozone standards that were established under the last 
regulation.
  I support the mission of the EPA in protecting human health, in 
protecting our air and our water, but there has to be a balance. There 
has to be a balance between growing the economy and preserving the 
environment. Over the last several years, we have seen that balance 
very disrupted. This disruption is at odds with the law and the well-
being of many of our working families.
  This has been acutely felt in my State of West Virginia where we have 
lost more than 35 percent of our coal jobs since the year 2011. That is 
more than 7,000 jobs eliminated in a relatively small State like West 
Virginia, and many of these jobs are very high-paying jobs.
  As a nation, we have lost more than 60,000 coal miners in the same 
timeframe. This has hurt our workers, our families, our communities, 
and our State.
  The loss of good-paying jobs means less commercial activity. It means 
less tax revenue to support our education, our county school systems, 
our county ambulances, our county sheriff's departments, and our law 
enforcement. For example, little old Wayne County in West Virginia has 
lost 88 percent of its coal severance taxes between 2013 and 2016. This 
year, our Governor and our legislature are struggling right now with a 
$500 million budget deficit, largely due to the loss of our coal jobs.
  Patching that shortfall could mean significant tax increases, painful 
cuts in public services, or both, which could further hurt and cripple 
our local economy. It will be a long road undoing the legal and 
economic damages suffered over the last several years.
  Voters in my State and across the country have made it clear that 
fixing Washington includes meaningful reforms for the way that the EPA 
operates and has been operating.
  So what do we have before us? We have a great nominee for EPA 
Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who is presently the attorney general of 
another energy-producing State--Oklahoma. Scott is committed to 
returning the Agency to its core mission of protecting our air, our 
water, and our land without undercutting the economy. At least, we know 
that he will listen to the other side and try to be reasonable.
  He will ensure that the EPA abides by congressional intent, and he 
will be an active partner with State and local stakeholders in the 
rulemaking process.
  Going back to the stream buffer rule and the reason that fell apart--
and I am so pleased that the President is going to be signing the CRA 
on that today--the EPA invited States to come in and speak about the 
rulemaking process. Within months, it became very apparent to the 
States that are charged with protecting the water that this is just 
window dressing. They realized: They are not listening to us, and they 
don't really want us to buy in. Eight of those States left.
  So as the attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, he has held 
industry to account as well protected lakes and streams in his State. I 
asked him in the committee: If the State or local government doesn't 
intervene in what looks to be an environmental issue--not just a 
crisis, but if they are not doing their job in protecting the air and 
the water--what would you do as the EPA Administrator? He said: That is 
where we should be stepping in. That is where we should be helping 
those States meet those standards, helping those States get the right 
information.
  So I think he is going to be unafraid to take on the EPA when it is 
set to ignore a State's sovereignty.
  Mr. Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted candidate for this position 
in history. He fielded 6 hours' worth of questioning before the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, where I serve. During that 
hearing, he assured me that he will engage directly with the State of 
West Virginia and visit our State. We could never get the EPA 
Administrator to visit our State and listen to our side. He will visit 
our State, listen to our side, and reform the rulemaking process to 
prevent another open assault on our economy by unelected bureaucrats.
  He also committed to me that he would pursue full implementation of 
the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 
Act, a bill on which we joined together--Republicans and Democrats, 
both sides of the aisle, with President Obama--to modernize our toxic 
chemical regulations in terms of water.
  This is important to me. I was talking to my colleague from Michigan 
about this issue. We had a water crisis in West Virginia where we had a 
large chemical spill. This bill, under Scott Pruitt's leadership and my 
pressing for the implementation, as others will be, will help us in 
situations like this.
  Beyond the over 200 questions he answered in the hearing, he answered 
more than 1,000 followup questions. He is the most thoroughly vetted 
nominee for Administrator in the history of the EPA. I am confident--
very confident--as he assured me in committee and in personal meetings, 
and I have watched him in action in terms of questioning the overreach 
in the court systems. He has worked with our attorney general, Patrick 
Morrisey, to be the leader in this.
  I have confidence that he embodies the leadership that we need to 
restore the balance and accountability to the EPA in a way that will 
benefit the public health and benefit environmental preservation, as 
well as restore much-needed economic growth that needs to be a part of 
the balance that we want to see restored back to the EPA.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me say first that I join with the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia in expressing concern about 
our water infrastructure and water issues. As many of us know, we have 
had terrific challenges in Flint, MI, with an entire water system being 
unable to be used because of lead poisoning and the terrible decisions 
made, primarily at the State level.
  I was very concerned--when I speak about Mr. Pruitt and his 
nomination--that when asked by Senator Cardin if he believes there is 
any safe level of lead that can be taken into the human body, 
particularly a young person, he said that this is something he hasn't 
reviewed and doesn't know anything about. That is deeply concerning to 
me--that the person who would be heading the EPA would not know 
anything about lead poisoning and what that means, first of all, in a 
child's body, where it is poisoned and affects their development 
throughout their life. It is critically important for us in Michigan--
and there are many, many places where there are serious water quality 
issues that need to be addressed--that we have someone who understands 
the science and the need for clean water rules and protecting our 
waters so that any family, any community can have the confidence of 
turning on the faucet and knowing that there is going to be clean water 
coming out into their sink in their home. It is very concerning to me 
that we have a nominee who indicated that he really didn't know 
anything about this issue.
  So for that and a number of reasons--many, many reasons--I am joining 
with so many colleagues in opposing Scott Pruitt to be the next 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA Administrator is a very important position. As I indicated, 
to those of us in Michigan, surrounded by the beauty of the Great 
Lakes, having the responsibility for protecting the Great Lakes, this 
is a very, very important position.
  After examining Mr. Pruitt's record on a broad range of issues, as 
well as

[[Page S1236]]

his views about the Agency he has been nominated to lead, I have 
significant concerns about the direction and the priorities the EPA 
would take if he becomes Administrator.
  Now, this is not based on partisan politics. When George W. Bush was 
President, I joined 98 of my colleagues to vote to confirm Christie 
Todd Whitman to be EPA Administrator. Two years later, I was among 87 
other Members of the Senate to vote to confirm Michael Leavitt to 
succeed her at the EPA.
  But the facts are--the evidence is--that Scott Pruitt does not have 
the requisite experience and track record to successfully lead an 
Agency that plays such a critical role in protecting the health and the 
well-being of the American people, and, certainly, the people that I 
represent in the great State of Michigan.
  As I mentioned before, we are very, very familiar with the importance 
of clean water and the consequences of environmental mismanagement. We 
need an EPA that will act quickly when there is a crisis like the one 
that happened in Flint, which is, unfortunately, still going on. This 
was a manmade crisis inflicted by the State of Michigan's actions on a 
number of different levels that created a situation where the State 
would rather save $100 a day than treat the water for lead 
corrosion. So $100 a day they wanted to save rather than treat the 
water to prevent children and families from being exposed to lead-
tainted water. This was a State decision.

  Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that it is his intention to defer as 
much as possible to States--to States like Michigan, which didn't treat 
the water, then didn't tell the truth, then covered it up, and still 
has not done--despite Congress and the President together acting to 
support that community, the State still has not stepped up to meet 
their responsibilities. After more than 2 years, people still cannot 
turn on the faucet and have confidence that they are going to have 
clean water. Yet Mr. Pruitt says the State ought to be the one making 
these decisions.
  While I firmly believe an effective EPA is one that works closely and 
often in concert with State and local communities, we must also be sure 
we have leadership at the EPA that is willing and capable of providing 
the oversight necessary to ensure environmental and public health 
standards.
  We also need an EPA Administrator whom we can trust to protect and 
preserve our amazing Great Lakes. Critical to this objective is a grant 
program administered by the EPA called Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative. I was very pleased to champion and help launch this in 2010 
with strong support from the Obama administration. This accelerates 
efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes by providing grants to 
clean up contaminated areas; prevent and control invasive species, 
things like Asian carp, which we are constantly having to focus on to 
push back these fish from destroying our fisheries and boating 
operations and environments in the Great Lakes; to address harmful 
algae blooms and restore habitat; and to protect native species.
  Scott Pruitt's long record of opposing nearly all Federal 
environmental programs raises serious questions to me about his 
commitment to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and all of the 
efforts we have worked on in a bipartisan, bicameral way to make sure 
we are protecting 20 percent of the world's freshwater, 30 million 
people's drinking water, and a huge economic engine called the Great 
Lakes.
  I always like to say the Great Lakes are in our DNA, and that is very 
true for all of us who live in Michigan and certainly around the Great 
Lakes because we understand that this great natural resource supports 
more than 1.5 million jobs and nearly $62 billion in wages tied to jobs 
and industries, and, frankly, it reflects our wonderful quality of life 
in Michigan.
  I also have great concerns about Mr. Pruitt's long-running opposition 
to the landmark renewable fuel standard, which puts him at odds with 
the Agency that administers the program. The President promised us a 
farmer-friendly EPA. Yet this nominee to lead the Agency wants to 
dismantle one of the most successful economic drivers in rural America. 
Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly spoken out against the renewable fuel 
standard, calling the program flawed and unworkable.
  Mr. Pruitt heading up EPA, coupled with former ExxonMobil executive 
Rex Tillerson at the State Department and oil refinery owner Carl Icahn 
advising the White House, may well be the end of the RFS as we know it. 
That is, frankly, bad news for biofuels producers in Michigan, bad news 
for Americans who care about creating economic growth and jobs in rural 
communities, and bad news for small towns and communities throughout 
Michigan. Mr. Pruitt's record of siding with polluters over sound 
science puts him outside the mainstream of what we should expect from 
our EPA Administrator.
  It is for these reasons that I intend to vote against his nomination, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator.
  To summarize--and then I will go into some detail--Virginians are 
pro-science people. The political figure we most venerate is still 
Thomas Jefferson, who was the preeminent scientist of his day. We are 
pro-science people. Second, the evidence from Mr. Pruitt's career 
demonstrates he is anti-science in the climate area and possibly 
others. Third, there is no position in the Federal Government that more 
relies upon accurate science and scientistic judgement than EPA 
Administrator.
  I think the President is afforded significant discretion in 
appointing members of the Cabinet, and I have voted to confirm a number 
of President Trump's nominees even if I wouldn't have nominated them 
myself because I think they meet the basic test of competence and 
integrity. But I have voted against individuals if they can't satisfy 
me that they meet our ethical standards or that they are qualified for 
the position or that they are able to do the job fairly and 
objectively.
  The ability of the EPA Administrator to do this job fairly and 
objectively requires an acknowledgement of the scientific reality of 
climate change and other science. This isn't an abstract matter for 
Virginia, and it is not an abstract matter for the EPA Administrator.
  Next only to coastal Louisiana, Virginia is the most susceptible 
State to sea level rise. Hampton Roads, VA, with 1.6 million people--
our second largest metropolitan area--not only is it a busy and 
thriving metropolitan area, but it is the center of American naval 
power and the largest base of naval operations in the world. It is the 
homeport for the U.S. Atlantic fleet. What we are seeing throughout 
Hampton Roads, VA, is that neighborhoods where you could sell and buy a 
house 15 years ago, you now can't because normal tidal action renders 
the homes impossible to sell. It affects businesses.
  By 2040, the main road into the largest naval base in the world, 
Norfolk, will be covered 2 to 3 hours a day just by normal tidal 
action, not by storm surges, which make it more significant. So now the 
cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Chesapeake, 
Newport News, and Hampton are all trying to figure out ways to make 
resiliency investments to protect against sea level rise, and the 
Department of Defense is having to contemplate the same kinds of 
investments to protect our naval operations in Hampton Roads.
  The EPA's mission and its entire existence revolve around science. To 
enforce the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, to set limits on 
pollutants that are stringent enough to have measurable benefits but 
reasonable enough to avoid negative economic impacts to the degree we 
can, and to pore over reams and reams of data and analysis and figure 
out whether a chemical in a consumer product is harmful takes science. 
To analyze whether fracking or some other method of extracting energy 
is dangerous to drinking water or not dangerous or somewhere in the 
middle or what the right limits should be takes science.
  In an earlier iteration, I was the mayor of Richmond. My city has a 
river in the middle of it that was so polluted--the James River--you 
couldn't swim in it and you couldn't fish in it. There was no bird life 
in it because it had been polluted over such a long time. Today, go to 
Richmond, VA, and you will see people canoeing

[[Page S1237]]

and kayaking. You will see people fishing and taking the fish home to 
eat. You will see people swimming. It has gone from the sewer of our 
city to the front yard of our city, to the thing that has helped bring 
population back into downtown Richmond and grow our population, and it 
happened because of the Clean Water Act.
  There is always a question in regulation--too hot, too cold, or just 
right. But my city would not be what it is today had there not been a 
Clean Water Act that required us--in some ways that were painful at 
times--to save the river, and now it has herons, bald eagles, fish, 
kayakers, and canoeists, and everybody's quality of life and the 
economy are better too.
  Mr. Pruitt has been asked repeatedly about his views on climate 
science. Just 4 months ago, he stated:

       We've done a lot [in reducing carbon emissions], and that's 
     not even addressing, guys, the fact that there's a tremendous 
     dispute, as you know, that's going on in the marketplace 
     about how much this global warming trend that the [Obama] 
     administration talks about, if it's true or not.
       Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period 
     of time where the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat? I 
     mean is it just typical natural type of occurrences as 
     opposed to what the Administration says?

  That was just 4 months ago. This kind of skepticism--we don't know 
whether humans cause it; we don't know whether it is natural--is 
exactly the kind of thing we have seen in Congress before. There was a 
famous hearing in Congress that was sort of emblazoned on people's 
memories of a whole bunch of witnesses standing up and swearing to tell 
the truth and saying: We don't know that there is a connection between 
cigarette smoking and cancer. This kind of denial of the scientific 
consensus from an Administrator of the chief agency that needs science 
in this country is deeply troubling.

  I don't think it should be going out on a limb to declare that 
climate change is happening, driven largely by the burning of fossil 
fuels, and is a problem we have to deal with in some way. How to deal 
with it, how quickly to deal with it--those are tough questions, but 
acknowledging the science should not be tough.
  That acknowledgement of the science was the policy of a predecessor 
of mine, Virginia Senator John Warner, a Republican, who introduced one 
of the first climate bills in Congress with Democratic Senator Joe 
Lieberman in 2006. This policy that we recognize science was the policy 
of the George H.W. Bush administration, which negotiated the U.N. 
Framework Convention on Climate Change more than 25 years ago. It was 
the policy that underlay the Presidential campaign of one of our 
colleagues, Senator John McCain, in 2008.
  Acknowledging the science of climate change isn't a matter of 
political views; it is a matter of science and reality. We can discuss 
and debate what to do about it, and I think those are challenging 
discussions to have. That is fair game. Differences of opinion about 
what to do about--that is fair game. But denying an overwhelming 
scientific consensus that climate change exists and that it is driven 
by human activity in the burning of fossil fuels--something ExxonMobil 
scientists were agreeing to in papers written in the 1980s, not 4 
months ago--denying that is a denial of science.
  I worry. If Mr. Pruitt denies science on this matter, what other 
science will he deny? His record as attorney general in Oklahoma bears 
me out on my worry to some degree. In virtually every decision, the 
attorney general's office defended the interests of oil and gas, of Big 
Agribusiness, and basically the interests of polluters against the 
interests of clean air and water, which are the interests of our 
families and our kids.
  A New York Times article from 2 years ago--before Mr. Pruitt was 
nominated for this position--identified that when the EPA was looking 
at the potential impacts--potential, not guaranteed; we are trying to 
determine if there are impacts--of fracking on water quality and 
seismic instability, Attorney General Pruitt submitted comments on 
behalf of the State of Oklahoma that expressed skepticism that fracking 
was causing any problems. Well, why not do the investigation? Why not 
get to the bottom of it? Was the opinion that he expressed backed by 
science? Was it backed by a deep analysis that had been done by 
scientists or smart attorneys in Mr. Pruitt's office? No. In this 
instance, good investigative journalism determined that the comment 
expressing skepticism about fracking having any effect on water quality 
was actually written by an energy company, copied, and pasted onto 
official Oklahoma letterhead and submitted to the EPA as representing 
the views of Oklahoma public officials.
  Would it be appropriate for the attorney general of Oklahoma--a State 
that has significant oil and gas--to take into account the views of oil 
and gas producers on something as important as fracking? Absolutely. In 
fact, you would not be doing your job if you didn't take the views of 
those companies into account. But considering industry views is very 
different from taking their views and portraying them as coming from 
you, a holder of a public trust who is supposed to be working for 
everybody and not just one company or one industry.
  Here is one more example I will give before I conclude, because I 
take it personally. Virginia is one of the six States in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. I worked on this matter as Governor of Virginia, along 
with colleagues in the other States and the District of Columbia, and 
we worked together with the EPA on how to clean up the bay. This is a 
treasured resource for Virginians. It is about as bipartisan a thing as 
there is in Virginia. Probably next to support for veterans, support 
for the Chesapeake Bay would be a close second in bipartisanship. As 
public officials, we worked out with the EPA a strategy we thought 
would be conducive to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay--which is not just 
about enjoyment, not just about water quality, but also about 
traditional Virginia industries, like watermen's industry tourism, 
which is a big industry in our State.
  We worked it out to our satisfaction, but when we did, there was a 
lawsuit filed against this particular regulation by the Farm Bureau. 
The attorney general of Oklahoma--not one of the six States in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed--the attorney general of Oklahoma intervened 
and filed a friend-of-the-court brief to try to strike down the 
regulation that the EPA and Virginia officials had worked on in tandem 
for the good of the Chesapeake Bay, for the good of our Commonwealth, 
for the good of our citizens.
  I contend: Why would an attorney general in Oklahoma care so much 
about a Chesapeake Bay rule that we had worked out together? I contend 
that he and some other attorneys general who joined in this were 
worried that if the EPA succeeded, then the EPA might try something in 
other large watersheds, including those in their States.
  The matter did go to the Federal appellate court. The Federal 
appellate court upheld the Chesapeake Bay plan. The attorneys general 
and others tried to take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 
wouldn't take the appeal, and so the Chesapeake Bay plan is in 
operation. We were all struck about why an Oklahoma attorney general 
would be going after something affecting the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
and there is a point there.
  The point was this. EPA scientists working in tandem with State 
officials had analyzed the water quality in the bay, and they had 
followed the State's progress, or lack thereof, over time, and they 
finally said, again, working in tandem with many of us: The pollution 
levels are so bad that we are never going to return the bay to what it 
can be unless we need to take action.
  It was that scientific consensus that Mr. Pruitt as attorney general 
of Oklahoma was challenging. Science is the pursuit of truth. Science 
is supposed to follow where the facts lead, no matter what the 
scientist's initial views might be.
  Mr. Pruitt's record does not tell me he will follow the data wherever 
it leads. It tells me that whenever there is a menu of options, he is 
going to take the option that is most beneficial to polluters rather 
than beneficial to public health.
  I will conclude with the point at which I started. There is no 
Federal agency that needs to have somebody who accepts science and 
scientific consensus more than the EPA. It matters

[[Page S1238]]

deeply to Virginia, but I don't think Virginians are unique to this. I 
think it matters to the citizens of 50 States.
  EPA regulations are not all wise, and some need to be dialed back. I 
have seen the positive effects of wise EPA regulations in my city and 
in my State. I am going to vote no on Mr. Pruitt because I don't 
believe his first duty will be to follow science and enforce just laws 
and regulations, appropriately governing the water we drink and the air 
we breathe.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.