[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.