[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1242-S1248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               Ex-IM Bank

  But I didn't come to talk about the appointment of Scott Pruitt. I 
came to talk about something we could all agree on, and in fact the 
President and I agree on this, and I think everyone agrees on this 
almost unanimously, which is that American jobs matter. Putting 
Americans back to work in manufacturing is one of the most critical 
things that we can do in the Senate, making sure that our people have 
an opportunity to succeed, participate, and have an opportunity to 
produce goods and services that can be exported and can grow the wealth 
of our country and grow the economy of our country.
  Last week I joined President Trump in a small bipartisan lunch. We 
had a chance to talk about a variety of issues. There are very many 
issues that divide us, but this issue unites us. I specifically talked 
with the President about the need to get the Export-Import Bank up and 
running. I also talked to him about the Export-Import Bank in December 
and talked about the importance of enabling this institution to 
function for the American manufacturing worker. The great news is that 
President Trump agrees, and he informed me that we can in fact say he 
supports the Ex-Im Bank and that he would be nominating someone soon to 
serve on the Export-Import Bank.
  That led off a rash of discussion among the usual naysayers with the 
Ex-Im Bank, mostly driven by ideology and not fact. So I think it is 
important to come once again to reiterate the importance of the Ex-Im 
Bank.
  I certainly appreciate the President's interest in making American 
workers a priority. He will be at Boeing in South Carolina on Friday. I 
don't know if he will make any announcement about nominating someone to 
the Ex-Im Bank. I hope he does.
  There has been a lot of talk about supporting the economy and 
boosting American manufacturing jobs, but all that talk falls on deaf 
ears if we don't take action on the simple issues when we can 
accomplish those goals, and that simple issue is enabling the Export-
Import Bank to function. For decades the Export-Import Bank has leveled 
the playing field for American workers and businesses. Yet heavy 
politics is enabling one Senator to put political ideology before the 
jobs and well-being of thousands of American workers across our 
country.
  We worked very, very hard in 2015. We knew that we were going to be 
challenged to get the Ex-Im Bank reauthorized. In June of 2015, the 
Export-Import Bank expired and did not have a charter. It was not 
authorized for the first time in its more than 80-year history. I 
fought very hard to reauthorize it, as did a number of my colleagues. 
Finally, in December 2016, 6 months later, the Bank was given a 
charter, given an authorization. I want to point out something because 
I think way too often we think what stops this endeavor is partisan 
politics. Guess what. Over 70 percent of the House of Representatives 
voted for the Ex-Im Bank and over 60 percent of the Senate voted for 
the Ex-Im Bank. This is not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan 
support. Yet there is a narrow group of people who would rather put 
ideology ahead of American jobs. It is wrong on so many levels.
  Despite the fact, unfortunately, that we finally authorized the Ex-Im 
Bank over a year ago with overwhelming support, we do not have a Bank 
that can authorize any credits over $10 million. That is because it 
requires a quorum of Bank board members to make that decision. We only 
have two out of the five members of the board. That means that we don't 
have a quorum. So what has been happening is that there is $30 
billion--think about that, $30 billion--of American exports waiting in 
the queue, waiting for approval, hoping desperately to get the

[[Page S1243]]

Ex-Im Bank up and running so those exports can receive the credit they 
need and receive the guarantees that those exports need and get people 
back to work.
  Do you know what else has been happening since we haven't had a 
quorum on the Bank? Thousands of American jobs have been transported to 
places like France and Canada. We are losing thousands of jobs.
  When I hear people say the Ex-Im Bank is the bank of Boeing or the 
bank of GE, trust me, I do not bleed for the executives of Boeing. I do 
not bleed for the executives of GE. They will do fine. In fact, they 
know how to get around this problem. They just move those manufacturing 
jobs to a country that will recognize the exports and will provide that 
export credit. That is what is happening. But guess what is happening 
to the American worker and families across these manufacturing 
facilities? They are getting pink slips. Why? Because this body refuses 
to give us a quorum on the Ex-Im Bank.
  The President understands this. The President understands how 
important it is to get these American workers back together. Now I want 
you just to think about what $30 billion of exports is worth to 
American employment. If we use the numbers that extrapolate, it is hard 
to know, but it is over 170,000 jobs. Think about the fact that 170,000 
jobs are waiting in the wings for us to do the right thing. When we 
move forward with the Ex-Im Bank, I think we will have a good day--a 
good bipartisan day when the President of the United States joins with 
those of us who care about workers and manufacturing in this country--
and we will get the Ex-Im Bank up and running. I think if we fail to do 
it and if we fail to send the signals that help is coming and that the 
Ex-Im Bank is going to be an effective institution that will once again 
play a role in American manufacturing and will be in that tool chest of 
trade opportunities--if we don't do it--then they are going to give up 
all hope, and they are going to find some other place to manufacture 
the products that will allow them to access the credit, that will allow 
them to sell their products overseas. So it is critically important.
  I want to leave with one statistic. The Peterson Institute recently 
estimated that the United States is losing $50 million in exports for 
every day that a nomination is not confirmed--$50 million of new wealth 
creation for our country. It is a travesty.

  Of all of the things I have seen here--the callous things--that sound 
so bureaucratic when you talk about the Ex-Im Bank, when you pick up 
the curtain and you look underneath, what we see are American jobs and 
American families and American opportunity and new wealth creation for 
our country and economic growth for our country. And because some 
institution that could give you a black mark in a political campaign 
says ``We don't like it,'' it doesn't get done. Shame on us.
  Thank you to the President for agreeing to help us move the Ex-Im 
Bank forward. Thank you to all of my colleagues--64 in the last 
Congress--who stood with us to get the Ex-Im Bank reauthorized and the 
over 70 percent of the House of Representatives, on a stand-alone vote, 
who voted for the Ex-Im Bank, who know how critically important this 
is. We can get this job done, and we can stop the migration of these 
jobs to other countries.
  I look forward to hearing more this week and hopefully early next 
week from the President. As a member of the Banking Committee, I look 
forward to pushing for a hearing and a vote on this nominee. And I look 
forward to the day that all of these exporters and these American 
workers can see that this institution can work for them, and that will 
be the day that those credits are approved at the Ex-Im Bank.
  Thank you so much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the Pruitt 
nomination.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, will my friend from Mississippi yield 
the floor for one moment?
  Mr. WICKER. I am delighted to yield.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to 
Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise this afternoon in 
support of Scott Pruitt, nominated for EPA Administrator, and to 
congratulate the leadership of this Senate and the administration for 
persevering on this nomination to the point where we will get a vote 
tomorrow afternoon and I think be able to end the week on a positive 
note.
  My good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, had just called for a 
good bipartisan day on the Senate floor, and I support many of the 
remarks she made in that regard. I would hope we could begin having 
some good bipartisan days with regard to the administration's 
nominations for these important positions.
  Sadly, it looks as though we will not have a bipartisan vote for 
Scott Pruitt. He will be confirmed but not nearly with the vote he 
should receive from Members on both sides of the aisle who know that 
there has been extreme overreach on the part of the EPA leadership 
under the Obama administration. The EPA needs a change in direction, 
and they need to become more sensible with regard to stopping 
pollution, while at the same time being friendly on job creation. So we 
will get this nomination finished tomorrow and we will have a good 
Administrator, but regrettably it will not be on a very bipartisan 
basis.
  This is the Scott Pruitt whom I have had a chance to learn about 
since he was nominated in January.
  The Scott Pruitt I have had a chance to learn about took on the 
polluters as attorney general for his State of Oklahoma and finalized 
multistate agreements to limit pollution, and he did so working with 
Democrats and working with Republicans on a bipartisan basis across the 
political spectrum. I think we need that sort of person as EPA 
Administrator. Scott Pruitt negotiated a water rights settlement with 
the tribes to preserve scenic lakes and rivers, and I think he is to be 
congratulated on that, not scolded. He stood up to oil companies and 
gas companies as attorney general for the State of Oklahoma and 
challenged them when they were polluting his State's air and water. 
Then--something I applaud--when the EPA overstepped its bounds and its 
mission and ceased to follow the law, he challenged the EPA. I submit 
to my colleagues that that is exactly the sort of balance we need to 
return to as Administrator of the EPA.
  In the hearing, which was rather extraordinary because of its length, 
Attorney General Pruitt demonstrated his knowledge, he demonstrated his 
intellect, and he demonstrated his patience. He was available all day 
long--an extraordinarily long hearing--answered more than 200 questions 
propounded at the hearing, and then beyond that he has now answered 
more than 1,000 questions for the record. Yet, in spite of this, it is 
disappointing that some of my colleagues, some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, have taken not only to disparaging his 
qualifications and his suitability for this position but also engaged 
in a slow-walking process designed to keep this nomination from even 
coming forward.
  Every Democrat boycotted the committee meeting that was called to 
report this nomination to the floor so that we could even have an up-
or-down vote. They walked out of the meeting. This is the sort of 
tactic we were able to overcome on a parliamentary basis, but it has 
given us what we now know is the slowest confirmation process in 225 
years. The only President to have a slower confirmation process was the 
one who was getting it all kicked off to start with; George 
Washington's was a bit slower. We will see. Maybe if this keeps going, 
we could surpass the slowness of the confirmation process that occurred 
for our first President.
  We need a change at EPA. The American people are ready for a change 
at EPA. We need an EPA Administrator who will listen to the 
environmentalists but also listen to the job creators. This means 
listening to the election but moving past the election and getting on 
to filling the positions that are

[[Page S1244]]

important to Americans, such as the EPA Administrator.
  Most Americans believe we can protect the environment and still 
protect job creators, and so does Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Most 
Americans believe we can have clean air and water without destroying 
thousands upon thousands of jobs for Americans. That is what I believe. 
That is what Scott Pruitt believes.
  I would quote from a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which 
William McGurn wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt but also generally in 
support of other nominations. With regard to Pruitt, Mr. McGurn says 
this: ``The fierce opposition to Mr. Pruitt speaks to the progressive 
fear that he might help restore not only science to its rightful place 
but also federalism.'' I think that is what Scott Pruitt is going to be 
about when he is confirmed tomorrow and finally gets down to working 
for us, the taxpayers, as Administrator of EPA.
  This is about the 1-month mark in this administration, and we are 
slowly getting past this unprecedented slow-walk effort by our 
colleagues. I certainly hope that with the 1,100 other appointments 
that have to be submitted and have to be spoken to by this Senate, we 
can hasten the process so we can pass legislation and be about the 
business our constituents sent us here to do.
  Approving Attorney General Scott Pruitt will allow us to move forward 
with the people's business with a man who has demonstrated courtesy, 
intelligence, patience, and professionalism, and I will be honored to 
be one of those voting yes tomorrow when we confirm this outstanding 
candidate as EPA Administrator.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on something our 
friend from Mississippi was just saying. I want to make it clear that I 
am not really interested in obstructing. I am not interested at all in 
obstructing. What I am interested in is getting to the truth about this 
nominee and others.
  Two years ago, an organization called the Center for Media and 
Democracy petitioned, under the Oklahoma open records law--it is a 
FOIA-like law at the State level--they asked for access to thousands of 
emails that were sent from or to the attorney general's office under 
Scott Pruitt. That was 2 years ago. They have repeatedly renewed that 
request over time, and it has not been granted.
  Why might emails be germane? Well, they are germane because many of 
the emails were with industries that have differences with the EPA and 
in some cases are involved in lawsuits, a number of which were 
sponsored by or joined in by Attorney General Pruitt.
  Two years after the request to see those emails was submitted to the 
attorney general's office, they had not seen one of them. A lawsuit was 
filed earlier this month asking the court--I think it is called the 
district court of Oklahoma, a State court--asking to see the emails and 
asking that the court intervene so that the Center for Media and 
Democracy would have access to the emails.
  The Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee wrote to 
the judge, and we shared our voice because we have been making the same 
request of the attorney general's office--of the attorney general--as 
part of the nominations process. He has declined to provide the emails 
to the Congress, the Senate, and we have let the judge know that we 
appreciate her attention to this matter and hope she might even 
expedite it. Well, an expedited hearing is called for this afternoon on 
the sharing of these emails that have been blocked, stonewalled, for 2 
years.
  What we did as Democrats on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee is I met with the majority leader, and nine of us wrote to 
the majority leader, and we said: With all due respect, we suggest to 
give the judge time to make a decision, and if the judge says the 
emails should be opened up, allow us to have until a week from this 
coming Monday to look at the emails to see if there is anything 
inappropriate or untoward that could be revealed.
  That request to the majority leader--he was very nice about it, but 
he basically said: We are not going to do that.
  I renewed the request here yesterday on the floor, and he said: No, 
we are not going to do that.
  I am generally one who thinks it is very important for us to 
communicate, collaborate, cooperate around here, as I think most of my 
colleagues would attest, but in this case, I don't think we made an 
unreasonable request of the nominee. And I think to block access to 
these emails--even when petitioned under the Oklahoma FOIA law, backed 
up by our support--for nothing to happen is just wrong. That is just 
wrong.
  So hopefully when the judge has this hearing later this afternoon--
actually, in 2 hours--we will find out a bit more as to whether the 
AG's office is going to be asked to turn these emails over and make 
them public with that information. I hope the answer will be yes. We 
will see.
  I asked Mr. Pruitt 52 questions on December 28 and asked they be 
responded to by January 9. January 9 came and went, and we were told 
maybe we would get the responses at the hearing we were going to have 
on January 18. We had the hearing on January 18, and some of the 
specific questions were answered, some not, but we submitted as a 
committee some 1,000 additional questions for the record. That is a lot 
of questions. I suggested to the committee chairman he give the nominee 
a reasonable amount of time to respond to those questions. The 
chairman, in the interest of moving things along, I think, gave the 
nominee 2 days, which is, in my view, not nearly enough.
  If we go back several years ago, the last EPA Administrator was a 
woman named Gina McCarthy. She was asked a number of questions. She was 
actually asked more questions, I think 1,400 questions, which is 
several hundred more than Scott Pruitt but a lot of questions. She did 
not have enough time to answer the questions, and a little extra time, 
maybe a week or so, was granted. She answered the questions, as I 
understand, fully, completely, and directly. I will read some of the 
questions we asked of Scott Pruitt later today, later tonight, with 
examples of the kind of answers he provided. Some were reasonably 
complete, but too many were evasive, indirect, or just nonresponsive. 
Maybe that is because the chairman only gave him a couple days to 
respond. That is not the way we ought to be about the business.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to oppose the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I thank my colleague from Delaware, 
whom I had the honor to serve with when we were both Governors, for his 
good work to point out why Scott Pruitt is the wrong person to head the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA was created by a Republican President in 1970, Richard Nixon. 
I remember very clearly when he did that. Across subsequent decades, 
support for this Agency and for its important mission has been a 
strongly bipartisan endeavor. Our Nation has benefited from the service 
of dedicated, highly effective EPA Administrators from both parties, 
but I am deeply concerned that Scott Pruitt is a radical break from 
this bipartisan tradition.
  After reviewing Mr. Pruitt's environmental record, I have to ask: Why 
was he nominated for this critically important position? He rejects the 
core missions of the Environmental Protection Agency at every turn. He 
has sued the EPA to block protections for clean air and clean water; he 
is an outspoken climate change denier; he seeks to dismantle the EPA's 
Clean Power Plan, which was put in place to address climate change; and 
he opposes other efforts to slow the warming of this planet. Time and 
again, he has put private interests and their profits ahead of public 
interests and public health.

[[Page S1245]]

  As attorney general of Oklahoma, he has sided with oil and gas 
companies, and he has failed to protect the people of his State from 
some of the worst impacts of hydraulic fracturing. He has taken 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil 
fuel industries, and he zealously advocated for their freedom to 
pollute our air and water.
  So again I ask: Why was Scott Pruitt nominated to serve as 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? Well, I think it 
is clear Mr. Pruitt was nominated not to lead the EPA forward but to 
prevent it from carrying out its mission. Make no mistake, Mr. Pruitt 
and his extreme agenda are a threat to the environment, to the planet, 
and to our public health.
  Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican Governor of New Jersey 
and whom I also had the honor of serving with when I was Governor--
Senator Carper, Christie Whitman, and I all served as Governors 
together. She also was EPA Administrator during George W. Bush's 
administration. What she said about Pruitt I think is worth listening 
to. This is a Republican talking about Scott Pruitt: ``I don't recall 
ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the 
agency and the science behind what the agency does.''
  People in the State of New Hampshire have no doubt about the reality 
of climate change. In the Granite State we see it. We experience it all 
the time. The steady increase in yearly temperatures and the rise in 
annual precipitation are already affecting New Hampshire's tourism and 
our outdoor recreation economy, which accounts for more than $4 billion 
a year and employs over 50,000 people. Each year, hundreds of thousands 
of sportsmen and wildlife watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our 
beautiful mountains, our lakes, our other natural resources, and our 18 
miles of coastline, which we are very proud of. As I said, hunting, 
fishing, and outdoor recreation contribute more than $4 billion to New 
Hampshire's economy each year, but much of this is now threatened by 
the warming of our planet. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall 
foliage season, they are negatively affecting our snow- and ice-related 
winter recreation activities, including skiing, snowboarding, and 
snowmobiling. An estimated 17,000 Granite Staters are directly employed 
by the ski industry in New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Department 
of Environmental Services warns that those jobs are threatened by 
climate change.
  Likewise, New Hampshire's and indeed all of New England's brilliant 
fall foliage is at risk. I wish to quote from a report by New Hampshire 
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. They say: ``Current modeling 
forecasts predict that maple sugar trees eventually will be completely 
eliminated as a regionally important species in the northeastern United 
States.''
  Climate modeling by the Union of Concerned Scientists projects that 
by the end of this century, New Hampshire summers will feel like 
present-day summers in North Carolina, 700 miles to our south. We have 
a map that shows what is going to happen to our red maples and the 
maple sugaring industry. We can see everything here that is in red, 
these are all those sugar maples. It is projected that by 2070 or 2100, 
they are gone. They are gone from New England, from the Northeast, and 
from most of the Eastern part of this country. If we fail to act on 
climate change, this could mean a steep loss of jobs. It could mean a 
loss of revenue. It will destroy our maple sugaring industry and will 
damage our outdoor recreation industry.
  Maple sugar production is entirely dependent on weather conditions, 
and changes--no matter how modest--can throw off production and 
endanger this industry. Maple trees require warm days and freezing 
nights to create the optimal sugar content in sap production. The 
changing climate is putting more and more stress on sugar maples. As 
this map shows so well, it is already significantly affecting syrup 
production. If we fail to act on climate change, this could destroy our 
maple syrup industry. If you haven't done maple sugaring in the 
springtime, there is nothing like maple syrup over snow. There is 
nothing else like it. To lose that and to lose the jobs that are there 
is a real change to one of the recreational activities we love in New 
Hampshire.
  Climate change is also threatening our wildlife species and their 
habitats. The moose is an iconic feature of New Hampshire's culture and 
identity, but as the results of climate change, we have seen a 40-
percent decline in New Hampshire's moose population. We can see clearly 
from these pictures why we are losing our moose: Because of milder 
winters, ticks don't die off. It is really very tragic. The ticks 
multiply on a moose, they ravage it, and they eventually kill it. I 
don't know if people can see, but what look like little balls on the 
end of that moose's tail are ticks. This moose probably has brain worm, 
which is another problem the moose have because of winters that aren't 
cold enough to kill off those parasites. Ticks multiply on a moose, 
they ravage it, and they eventually kill it.
  We have seen modeling from the University of New Hampshire which 
suggests that by 2030, moose will be gone--not only from northern New 
Hampshire but from much of the northern part of this country.
  Other newly invasive insects are harming wildlife species as well as 
trees. Of course, people are also suffering from the impacts of climate 
change. Rising temperatures increase the number of air pollution action 
days. They increase pollen and mold levels, outdoors as well as 
allergen levels inside, and all of these things are dangerous to 
sensitive populations with asthma, allergies, and chronic respiratory 
conditions. In fact, New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of 
childhood asthma in the country because we are the tailpipe. All of New 
England is the tailpipe for the rest of the country. Pollution blows 
across this country from the Midwest and exits through New Hampshire 
and New England.
  Rising temperatures facilitate the spread of insect-borne illnesses 
such as Lyme disease. We could see on that moose what the impact is. 
Those ticks aren't just multiplying on the moose, they are multiplying 
in a way that affects people as well.
  Fortunately, because we have seen the impact of climate change, New 
Hampshire and the other New England States are taking the lead in 
reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to a more energy-efficient, 
clean energy economy. We are one of nine Northeastern States 
participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative called RGGI. It 
is essentially a cap-and-trade system in the Northeast. New Hampshire 
has already reduced its power sector carbon pollution by 49 percent 
since 2008. That is a 49-percent reduction in less than a decade. 
Thanks to efforts by State and local communities, New Hampshire is on 
track to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction goals 10 years 
early. In addition, we are using proceeds from emissions permits sold 
at RGGI auctions to finance clean energy and energy efficiency 
investments.
  Unfortunately, Scott Pruitt seems to believe that reducing pollution 
and investing in a clean environment are somehow bad for the economy. 
He is just wrong about that. Our efforts in New Hampshire and across 
New England to fight climate change and promote clean energy have been 
a major boost to economic growth. We have seen jobs added as a result. 
During its first 3 years, RGGI produced $1.6 billion in net economic 
value and created more than 16,000 jobs in our region. Nationwide, 
employment in the fossil fuel sector is falling dramatically, but job 
creation in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors is 
exploding. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 2 
million jobs have been created in the energy efficiency sector alone 
and--if we can ever get Congress to move the energy efficiency 
legislation Senator Portman and I have introduced--would create, by 
2030, another 200,000 jobs, just on energy efficiency. Across New 
England, we are demonstrating that smart energy choices can benefit the 
environment and strengthen job creation and the economy overall.
  So, again, we have to ask: Why does Scott Pruitt deny the science of 
climate change? Why has he urged States to refuse to comply with the 
Clean Power Plan? Why has he filed lawsuit after lawsuit to block 
enforcement of the Clean Air Act? Why does he deny

[[Page S1246]]

something as nearly universally recognized as the dangers of mercury 
pollution?

  The bottom line, I believe, is that Scott Pruitt is first and 
foremost a fierce defender of the oil and gas industry. If scientists 
point to carbon emissions as the main cause of climate change, then he 
has to deny that science. If science and common sense point to 
hydraulic fracking as the cause of thousands of earthquakes in the 
State of Oklahoma, then he must deny that too. If the EPA's mission is 
to protect clean air and clean water from pollution caused by fossil 
fuels, then he has to sue the EPA and try to cripple it.
  Scott Pruitt's nomination is not about shaking things up in 
Washington. It is about turning over control of the EPA to the fossil 
fuel industry and turning back the clock on half a century of 
bipartisan efforts--in Democratic and Republican administrations 
alike--to protect clean air and clean water and to pass on to our 
children a livable environment and an Earth that they can inhabit from 
future generations.
  My office has been flooded with calls, emails, and letters from 
Granite Staters. They not only oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination, they are 
genuinely afraid of the consequences of putting him in charge of the 
EPA.
  I heard from Deb Smith from Hampton, NH. That is a small community on 
our coastline. She wrote:

       I am a birder, love to walk on the beach and in the 
     mountains, and rely on time spent in nature to cope with a 
     [stage four] lung cancer diagnosis. Clean air is especially 
     important to me! Pruitt's long history of suing the EPA and 
     reversing decades of progress in improving the environment 
     disqualifies him for this post. It is essential to continue 
     to preserve and improve our natural environment for people, 
     birds, and other wildlife!

  Elizabeth Garlo of Concord writes:

       New Hampshire, due to quirks in its geology and the Earth's 
     rotation, is the ``tailpipe'' of the Nation with much of the 
     air pollutants from the Midwest exiting to the ocean from 
     here. The people of New Hampshire cannot sit back and watch 
     our children suffer from asthma and be restricted from 
     outside activities due to ``bad air quality days.'' Mr. 
     Pruitt will be a very significant detriment to the quality of 
     life in New Hampshire.

  Eugene Harrington of Nashua writes:

       I am AGAINST the appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the 
     EPA. He does not seem to support the purpose of the EPA. Now 
     I hear that even scientific papers are being reviewed to be 
     sure they support the current administration's view of 
     ``facts.'' Please do what you can to support a functioning 
     EPA.

  Christopher Morgan of Amherst, NH, writes:

       This is my first message I have ever sent to my senator in 
     my 32 years as a voting American. . . . As a registered 
     Republican . . . I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Pruitt 
     leading the EPA. He has consistently shown he does not 
     believe in the threat posed by climate change. Climate change 
     affects every citizen in this country and has a detrimental 
     effect on the New Hampshire climate specifically. President 
     Trump's willful disregard for the safety and protection of 
     all Americans cannot go unchecked.

  Let me emphasize that I have heard from many Republican constituents 
who oppose Scott Pruitt's confirmation. My Republican friends point 
with pride to the fact that the EPA was created by a Republican 
President. After all, what could be more conservative than conserving 
our environment and preserving a livable Earth for future generations? 
For nearly half a century, protecting the environment has been a 
bipartisan priority and endeavor. That is especially true in the State 
of New Hampshire, where folks understand that clean air and water and 
fighting climate change are not and should not be partisan issues. We 
all have a profound stake in protecting the environment.
  Unfortunately, with the nomination of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, 
the Trump administration is willing to shatter this bipartisan 
tradition and consensus, and we must not allow this to happen. I appeal 
to all of my colleagues but especially to all of those on the other 
side of the aisle: Don't allow this nominee to destroy your party's 
hard-earned, commonsense efforts to protect clean air, clean water, and 
a sustainable Earth.
  I urge us to come together--Senators on both sides of the aisle--to 
reject this effort to undo nearly five decades of bipartisan efforts to 
protect our environment and our planet.
  The stakes are incredibly high for all of us. By rejecting this 
unsuitable nominee, we can reconsider our approach to the EPA. We can 
embrace this Nation's bipartisan commitment to protecting the 
environment for future generations. This is what the great majority of 
Americans want us to do. Let's listen to their voices, and let's say no 
to this nominee, Scott Pruitt, who is not only not qualified for this 
position, he is not committed to the EPA and its mission.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield 30 minutes of my postcloture 
debate time to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today, honored to speak after my 
colleague from New Hampshire and joining my other colleagues in 
opposing the nomination of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to 
serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Our beautiful natural resources define my home State of New 
Hampshire. From the White Mountains to the Seacoast, to our pristine 
lakes and our forests, our natural resources are critical to our 
economy, our environment, our way of life, and protecting these 
resources plays a critical role, as well, in protecting public health.
  However, we are already beginning to see the real impacts of climate 
change in New Hampshire, and these impacts threaten to have major 
consequences for our natural resources and families and businesses in 
every corner of my State. Recognizing that fact, members of both 
parties have come together in New Hampshire to enact commonsense 
bipartisan solutions to take on climate change and to grow and maintain 
our State's renewable clean energy sector. We have worked to protect 
our land, our air and water, and the health of our citizens.
  Unfortunately, it is clear from Mr. Pruitt's opposition to the Agency 
he will be tasked to lead, his record of working to weaken critical 
environmental protections that our citizens need to thrive, and his 
unwillingness to fight climate change, that he is unfit to serve in 
this position.
  The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency begins with 
protecting our environment and the health of all of our citizens. The 
EPA does critical work to protect the water we drink and the air we 
breathe.
  In recent years, the EPA has used sound scientific evidence to take 
strong measures to protect our environment. Unfortunately, President 
Trump has made clear that he does not support this critical Agency. 
Throughout his campaign, the President has repeatedly attacked the EPA, 
calling for its elimination and saying that our environment would be 
``just fine'' without it. The President has doubled down on his 
hostility toward this Agency by nominating Mr. Pruitt to serve as its 
Administrator.
  As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has been a vocal critic of the very 
Agency he has now been nominated to lead, and he has been involved in 
over 20 legal actions against it.
  According to the Washington Post, Mr. Pruitt has ``spent much of his 
energy as attorney general fighting the very agency he is being 
nominated to lead.''
  On social media, Mr. Pruitt has referred to himself as ``a leading 
advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' He has questioned the 
role of the Agency, stating that ``the EPA was never intended to be our 
Nation's frontline environmental regulator.''
  When asked by one of my colleagues if there were any clean air or 
clean water EPA regulations in place today that he could support, Mr. 
Pruitt declined to name a single one.
  The foundation of a future where all Americans have an opportunity to 
thrive starts with a healthy environment and healthy families. The EPA 
serves an important role in protecting the health of our people. We 
must do better than having an Administrator who has fought so 
tirelessly to undermine the work that this Agency does.
  I am also concerned by an EPA Administrator who has consistently 
voiced skepticism about the clear facts on climate change. Throughout 
my time in office, I have always fought to protect our environment and 
have been a strong supporter of curbing the impacts of climate change. 
As a State

[[Page S1247]]

senator, I sponsored legislation that allowed New Hampshire to join the 
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and I helped pass the State's 
renewable portfolio standard to maintain and grow New Hampshire's clean 
renewable energy sector.
  During my time as Governor, I worked with members of both parties to 
strengthen and build on those efforts, signing legislation to update 
the renewable portfolio standard and to maximize the benefits of the 
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
  I am proud that my State has long led efforts to cut carbon 
emissions, and it is crucial that other States follow our lead and take 
responsibility for the pollution that they cause. That is exactly why I 
am a strong supporter of measures like the Clean Power Plan.
  I also strongly support the Paris agreement on climate change and 
believe that the United States must take action to implement the 
agreement while also ensuring that our international partners fulfill 
their obligations.
  Mr. Pruitt, however, has been a consistent skeptic on the role of 
climate change and the role that it has had on our environment.
  Mr. Pruitt has stated that we do not know the extent of human impact 
on climate change and has called climate change a natural occurrence. 
He has said that climate change is ``one of the major policy debates of 
our time.''
  And he continued:

       That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to 
     disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and 
     its connection to the actions of mankind.

  Scientists are clear in their understanding of the climate change 
science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science says 
the scientific evidence is clear: Global climate change caused by human 
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
  The American Geophysical Union says that humanity is the major 
influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
  The American Meteorological Society says it is clear from extensive 
scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in 
climate of the past half a century is human-induced increases in the 
amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that warming of 
the climate system is unequivocal and human influence on the climate 
system is clear.
  The EPA is a science-based organization, and it is unacceptable for 
the EPA Administrator to be at odds with the well-established views of 
leading scientists. As the Agency's own website says:

       EPA is one of the world's leading environmental and human 
     health research organizations. Science provides the 
     foundation for Agency policies, actions, and decisions made 
     on behalf of the American people. Our research incorporates 
     science and engineering that meet the highest standards 
     for integrity, peer review, transparency, and ethics.

  Mr. Pruitt disagrees with well-established climate science. Simply 
put, that disqualifies him from leading an agency where ``science 
provides the foundation for . . . policies, actions, and decisions.'' 
If you refuse to believe research from the world's leading scientists, 
you cannot lead a science-based agency.
  From protecting our environment to protecting public health, the EPA 
plays a critical role in protecting the health of Granite Staters and 
all Americans. We know that a cleaner environment plays a key role in 
the economy, for the economy of New Hampshire and our entire country. 
We should be building on the critical efforts the EPA has taken to 
combat climate change and protect public health, not rolling them back.
  Mr. Pruitt's hostility to the basic functions of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and his work to undermine protections for clean air, 
land, and water make clear that he should not serve in this role.
  I will vote against Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  When Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked 
Scott Pruitt for critical information on his environmental record as 
attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt said no to the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  When Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked 
our fellow Republicans to delay Mr. Pruitt's vote until he got that 
important information, the Republican leadership here said: No, we 
won't wait for that critical information so that all Senators and the 
American people can understand who is being nominated.
  When I asked Scott Pruitt if he would recuse himself from all issues 
relating to the cases that he has brought against the EPA as Oklahoma 
attorney general, Scott Pruitt said no to me.
  Today we are here to respond to these very serious issues that are 
being raised about his ability to be an impartial Administrator of the 
EPA because the question before the American people and the Senate is 
whether Scott Pruitt should be the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and that answer is no.
  The EPA is our cop on the beat, protecting the American people and 
our environment from harmful pollution, hazardous waste, and the 
impacts of climate change. But as attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott 
Pruitt has tried to undermine the clean water rule and the Clean Air 
Act, putting the public health of millions of Americans at risk.
  Scott Pruitt questions the science of climate change. Scott Pruitt 
has accused the EPA of overestimating air pollution from drilling of 
natural gas wells in Oklahoma. Scott Pruitt has argued against 
President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which the EPA is supposed to 
implement. Scott Pruitt has sued to block the EPA from restricting 
mercury, a toxin that causes brain damage in children in the United 
States.
  The only thing that Scott Pruitt is certain of is that he wants to 
represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry. He wants to change 
the environmental watchdog into a polluter lapdog. And today we are 
drawing a line out here on the Senate floor because it is critical that 
the American people understand the moral implications for the water 
Americans drink, for the air they breathe, for the mercury that could 
go into the blood systems of children in our country, for the amount of 
smog that is allowed to be sent into the air, the amount of haze that 
is created across our country, and why the nomination of Scott Pruitt 
leads inevitably, inexplicably toward more pollution, more unhealthy 
air, and more unhealthy water going into the systems of our families 
across our country.
  That really goes to what the moral duty is of the Senate, the moral 
duty we have to ordinary families across the country. Do Americans 
really think the air we are breathing is too clean? Do people really 
believe the water we drink is too clean? Do people really want to water 
down those standards? Do they want to reduce the safeguards we have put 
in place?
  One hundred years ago, life expectancy in the United States was about 
48 years of age. In other words, we had gone from the Garden of Eden 
all the way to about 100 years ago, and we had increased life 
expectancy to about 48 years of age--not much progress. Now, it was 
always good for the Methuselah family. The wealthy always did pretty 
well. They could protect themselves from the things that would affect 
ordinary families, poorer families, from the Bible to 100 years ago. 
But then what happened? All of a sudden there was an awakening in our 
country that we had to make sure the sewage systems in our country were 
not going to be able to pollute families across our society. Then step 
by step, beginning with sewage and water, we in our Nation came to 
understand that we had to remove the majority of pollutants that were 
out there that were damaging the lives of ordinary Americans. That was 
a change that transformed not just the United States but, over time, 
the whole rest of the world.
  Now, 100 years later, life expectancy goes out to age 80. In other 
words, we have added 32 years of bonus life to the average American 
over the last 100 years. And what did it? Well, it is no

[[Page S1248]]

secret formula; it is just that we looked around and we saw the things 
we had to put in place in order to protect families, and we took a 
moral responsibility to make sure that those industries, especially 
those that were not providing protections, were forced to provide 
protections for those ordinary people.
  Here we are now considering Scott Pruitt as the new Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is what Mr. Pruitt has done 
as the attorney general of Oklahoma: He has sued the national 
Environmental Protection Agency for the State of Oklahoma 19 times, and 
the issues on which he has sued are almost a litany of the things that 
go right to the heart of the protections the American people want for 
their families.
  There are still eight cases that he brought pending before the EPA.
  I said to Scott Pruitt in the confirmation hearing: Attorney General 
Pruitt, will you recuse yourself from consideration of any of those 
eight pending cases during the time you are Administrator of the EPA if 
you are confirmed? And Mr. Pruitt said no. Well, as I said to him in 
the hearing, if you do not recuse yourself, Mr. Pruitt, that turns you 
into the plaintiff, the defendant, the judge, and the jury for all of 
those cases, and that is just an unconscionable conflict of interest. 
As a result, he would never be seen as an impartial Administrator at 
the EPA as he moved forward trying to repeal or weaken environmental 
protections through regulations that he originally sought to accomplish 
through litigation.
  We all know that across our country, overwhelmingly, the American 
people want--in the highest possible polling numbers, Democrat and 
Republican, liberal and conservative--they want the EPA to protect 
clean air, clean water, public health. They don't want children 
unnecessarily being exposed to pollutants in the atmosphere that can 
cause asthma. Those numbers are going up. The goal in America is to see 
the numbers go down, but that will not be the agenda Scott Pruitt 
brings to the EPA if he is, in fact, confirmed.
  This question of his fitness for this job also goes to the question 
of climate change. The science of climate change is now well 
established.
  Pope Francis came to the Capitol a year and a half ago to deliver his 
sermon on the hill to us, and what Pope Francis said to us is very 
simple: No. 1, that the planet is dangerously warming and that it is 
something which is being caused by human activity largely and that 
those who are going to be most adversely affected are the poorest and 
most vulnerable in our society. As the Pope said, we have a moral 
responsibility to do something about it as the most powerful country in 
the world and, along with China, the leading polluter in the world. 
This is Pope Francis talking to us about climate change.
  What does Scott Pruitt say about climate science? He says he is not 
quite certain any actions really have to be taken in order to deal with 
that issue. Well, we have a Pope who actually taught high school 
chemistry and who delivered a science and morality lesson to the 
Congress. He told us that science is certain, and he told us that our 
moral obligation is unavoidable.
  If we had a nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency who 
embraced that science and morality, I would be voting for him, but that 
is not who Scott Pruitt is. He is ignoring the impact the fossil fuel 
industry is having, and he is unwilling to commit to taking steps that 
can reduce that danger for our planet and for the most vulnerable on 
the planet.
  So I stand in opposition to his nomination, as I will be standing out 
here all day and into the night. I don't think that we are going to 
have a more important discussion than the direction of the health of 
our planet and the health of the children in our country. I think it is 
something that the American people have to hear all day and through the 
night.
  With that, I see the arrival of the Senator from Ohio. I know that he 
has time to speak on the Senate floor. So I yield back my time so that 
my good friend Senator Portman can be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for yielding his time.