Congressional Record, Volume 163 Issue 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)

[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.