[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1262-S1265]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Calling for a Special Counsel
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are in a day--in fact, yet another
day--of fast-developing, dramatic events. The news today that LTG
Michael Flynn, who served until recently as National Security Advisor,
may be culpable of lying to the FBI and therefore prosecutable for a
Federal criminal violation adds urgency to the need for a special
independent counsel to investigate all of the events surrounding his
conversation with the Russian Ambassador and who knew what about it
when and what was done.
The severity of this potential constitutional crisis--and we are
careening toward a constitutional crisis--makes it all the more
necessary that we have an objective and independent investigation, that
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself, and the White House
guarantee that documents are preserved--as we have requested in a
letter sent by Members of the Judiciary Committee, including myself--
today.
The severity of this potential constitutional crisis cannot be
exaggerated. Still we are in the early days of a new administration but
already the turmoil and turbulence throw into question almost all of
the proceedings here on other issues, urgent and important issues--
whether infrastructure, trade policy, job creation, economic growth,
all of the pressing issues of our day. They also raise potential
conflicts of interest on the part of other officials before us now,
including the nomination of Scott Pruitt. News that we have also
learned very recently, in this day of fast-developing events, increases
the importance of deliberate and thoughtful consideration of this
nomination.
Just within the last hour, a judge in Oklahoma has ordered the
release of thousands of emails sent by this nominee, Scott Pruitt, the
attorney general of Oklahoma, relevant to his dealings with oil and gas
interests in his State and elsewhere on relevant legislative and
litigation issues. This development really requires a delay in this
vote so we can review those emails and know what those conflicts of
interest were, what they may continue to be, and whether his answers to
our colleagues in his testimony at his confirmation hearing were
completely accurate and truthful. We need to delve into those emails,
know their contents, examine the contents, in fairness to him and in
fairness to an administration that may be appointing for confirmation
yet another official like General Flynn, who was forced to resign just
days after his appointment.
The interests of the Trump administration, as well as this body,
would be well served by delaying this vote so we can review those
emails. I call upon the Republican leadership to delay this vote, give
us a chance to review the emails, and give the American public a chance
to understand how those emails reflect on the qualifications of Scott
Pruitt and the potential conflicts of interest that may disqualify him
from serving in this all-important role.
I am here to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt, but whether we
oppose or approve of this nomination, we owe it to ourselves--I say to
my colleagues--we owe it to the United States Senate to delay this vote
so the potentially explosive material and contents of these emails can
be fully considered. If we fail to delay, we are, in effect,
potentially confirming a nominee who may be compelled to resign after
his disqualifying conflicts of interest are exposed to public view. We
have an obligation in advising and consenting to be as fully informed
as possible. If there were no such emails, if there were no such court
order, there might be an excuse for rushing to judgment as we are on
track to do now. There is no excuse for a rush to confirmation. Our
obligation to advise and consent implies also an obligation to review
these emails as comprehensively and fully and fairly as possible before
we make this decision.
The President has nominated Scott Pruitt as the next Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to serve a mission, which is to
protect human health and safeguard the environment. Even before
disclosure of these emails, which involve his contacts with oil and gas
interests, he came before us as perhaps one of the least-qualified
people in the United States of America to serve in this position. I
don't make this statement lightly. It may sound like hyperbole or
exaggeration, but the fact is, anyone who studies Scott Pruitt's record
as attorney general of his State--and I served as attorney general of
mine so I know his position pretty well--can see that his record is
antithetical and hostile to the mission and purpose of this Agency.
He is a potential Administrator who will take office at a critical
juncture for our planet. Sea levels continue to rise, long-established
weather patterns
[[Page S1263]]
have begun shifting, and the average global temperature is rapidly
approaching 2 centigrades Celsius above preindustrial levels. That is
an increase which many climate scientists believe may be a point of no
return--no return for the planet, no return for us, no return for
generations to come. We are at a historic moment.
The question will be whether Scott Pruitt will be dedicated to doing
something about climate change, about the pollution of our air,
streams, rivers, and oceans, whether he will be committed to enforcing
the rules and laws that protect us against those dangers of degradation
of our environment--degradation of the air we breathe, the water we
drink, the open spaces we enjoy.
That is the same Scott Pruitt who was pressed by our colleagues
during his confirmation hearing and could not name a single regulation
designed to protect clean air or water that he supports--the very same
Scott Pruitt, who was asked by our colleague Jeff Merkley whether he
agreed with the statement, ``Warming of the climate system is
unequivocal,'' and he dodged and equivocated. When he was questioned
about hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received in campaign
contributions from energy companies, he basically refused to answer. He
dodged the question. That is the Scott Pruitt who would become
Administrator of the EPA, and it is the same Scott Pruitt who, as
attorney general of Oklahoma, fought the tremendous progress made by
the Obama administration at every turn, taking legal action against the
EPA no fewer than 14 times.
While he was in office, he worked hand in hand with Oklahoma's
largest energy companies to roll back regulations that are vital to the
health and well-being of the American people, not just the people of
Oklahoma, as bad as that would be, but of all Americans, all of our
plant.
When he worked hand in hand with the Oklahoma energy industry, those
common bonds of purpose and work would be well illuminated by these
emails that today will be disclosed. In fact, maybe some of those
conflicts of interest will be revealed and dramatized by those emails.
That is why we must wait to have this confirmation vote.
He sued to try and block efforts to reduce nationwide emissions of
methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more effective at trapping
even carbon dioxide. He block the Clean Power Plan. He took three
separate actions against the EPA's mercury and air toxic rule,
targeting standards that the EPA estimates will save 45,000 lives.
Those are three more actions, it should be noted, than he took to
proactively promote clean air and clean water on behalf of the people
of Oklahoma in his entire time in office. Why did he take those
actions? Who helped him do it? How and why? The emails will help tell
that story and answer those questions.
Taken alone, even without the emails, these actions hardly show a
record of someone dedicated to promoting and protecting the
environment. Not once during his confirmation process did Mr. Pruitt
demonstrate to me a convincing willingness, let alone eagerness, to
uphold the mission of the Agency he now hopes to run, nor has he shown
an intent to be open and responsive with Members of this body. Most
troubling of all, he has, in no uncertain terms, failed to give any
indication that he will be a champion for our environment and that he
will advance scientifically sound policies to protect the public's
health.
The only thing Attorney General Pruitt has made abundantly clear is
that he holds a derisively dismissive attitude toward the Agency he now
seeks confirmation to lead. His nomination is an affront to the EPA,
but even more, it is a threat to our health, a threat to our
environment, a threat to the quality of our air and water, and a risky
gamble on the world we will leave to our children and our
grandchildren.
There is a very real concern about whose side Scott Pruitt will be
on. The question is, Whose side will he be on when and if he is
Administrator of the EPA? He has already shown a willingness to use the
power of whatever office he holds to advance an extreme agenda and to
malign opponents. Polluters do not need another champion in this
administration, and our environment does not need another foe. We have
enough foxes guarding henhouses as it is in this administration.
Mr. Pruitt's coziness with the firms that he will be required to
regulate--again the emails will tell the story about his relationships
with special interests. That is critically important, and, in fact,
even on the record we have now, it should disqualify him from this
position.
He doubts the effects of climate change and the extent to which our
rapidly warming climate is as a result of human activity, calling this
debate ``far from settled'' and placing himself well outside mainstream
opinion. His denials are rooted in the promise of funds from
corporations and interest groups that think it is far better for their
bottom line to pretend that incontrovertible climate change simply
doesn't exist.
He is a beneficiary of the denying corporations and special
interests, and those contentions are not only regressive and fallacious
but dangerous. If he is a prisoner of those special interests, as these
emails may show him to be, my colleagues will regret voting for him--
another reason that delaying his confirmation vote is appropriate and
necessary now.
The scientific evidence of climate change and human involvement is
overwhelming. You don't have to look hard to see it. Most of us in this
Chamber would need to speak only with a handful of our constituents--
the men and women who sent us here--to see the real impact this crisis
is having.
My home State of Connecticut has experienced a major rise in storms
that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage as well as
several lives. It seems that as soon as our State begins to rebuild
from one storm, another wreaks havoc on many of the same devastated
communities. These monster storms have become the new normal.
In Connecticut and around the country, weather disasters are rapidly
becoming part of a way of life, tragically, for innocent people caught
in their wake. In just 6 years, Connecticut has weathered the damage
and destruction of a freak October snowstorm, Superstorm Sandy, and the
force of numerous nor'easters. Severe storms like these, as well as
other disasters--floods, tornadoes, droughts--are happening at a rate
four times greater than just 30 years ago.
I am not here to argue climate change. I am here to argue that Scott
Pruitt is unqualified to fight climate change because he denies it is a
problem, and he denies the mission and purpose of the EPA as a vital
purpose and mission of our Federal Government.
The people of Connecticut understand climate change, and they get it.
They understand that it is happening and that it is happening in their
everyday lives. They see its effects. They know its causes, and they
know the truth. It will get worse. We need to take action.
This body is on the verge of action that should be postponed so that
we can consider vitally important information in those emails that
reflects on conflicts of interest, ties to special interests, influence
on Scott Pruitt, benefits to him in the past, and debts that he may
owe, literally and figuratively, to those special interests that may
impact his performance as Administrator of the EPA.
As attorney general of my State, environmental protection was a
priority to me. I will be honest; I sued the Federal Government, just
as Scott Pruitt did. I sued the Federal Government so that
environmental protection would be made more rigorous and stringent and
people would be protected, not to slow down the EPA but to speed it up
to provide impetus for its action and, in fact, to compel it to carry
out its mission and purpose.
Scott Pruitt has acted in exactly the opposite way, and the reasons
for his antipathy and hostility to the EPA may well be illustrated even
more dramatically and directly by these emails that we should consider.
I urge the Republican leadership to postpone and delay this vote so
that we may, in fact, consider those emails.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Carper
for his leadership today, and I rise today
[[Page S1264]]
to join him in speaking about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I will not be voting in favor of Mr. Pruitt's nomination for EPA
Administrator because of his record and views on issues that are very
important to the people of my State--issues like climate change, which
matters in Minnesota, and issues like the Renewable Fuel Standard. I am
not sure everyone has focused on that today, but I think it is
important, especially for States in the Midwest, to focus on what his
record has been on this issue.
Mr. Pruitt has written that the climate change debate is ``far from
settled'' and has made other troubling comments about climate change. I
could not disagree more. I believe that the debate on whether climate
change is happening is over. The facts are in, and the science is
clear.
The ``2014 National Climate Assessment'' stated the most recent
decade was the Nation's warmest on record. U.S. temperatures are
expected to continue to rise. It was drafted by over 300 authors and
extensively reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and a Federal
advisory committee of 60 members.
The ``Quadrennial Defense Review 2014'' of the Department of Defense
of the United States stated: ``The pressures caused by climate change
will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on
economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.''
Climate change isn't just about melting glaciers and rising ocean
levels, although it is certainly about that. It is also about what we
have experienced in the Midwest. When I first got to the Senate, I
remember hearing from experts, including people in our own Defense
Department and major military leaders who talked about the fact that
one of the consequences of climate change will be, first of all, all
over the world in economies that are already struggling. We are going
to see some of those developing nations encounter unpredictable
weather--hurricanes, tsunamis.
In the Midwest, while we may not have tsunamis, what we see is major,
unpredictable weather, which is just as dangerous. We have seen the
devastating impacts of natural disasters like Hurricane Matthew, and we
have seen flooding from Cedar Rapids and Duluth.
We now know the risk of climate change to Minnesota, to our country,
and to our planet. We must reduce greenhouse gas and tackle the
challenge of global climate change head-on. If we don't tackle this
issue, we are going to continue to struggle with the far-reaching
economic and environmental consequences.
Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak more long-term
havoc on our businesses and our industries. That is why businesses in
my State--major companies like Cargill and General Mills--have been
willing to take this on, have been willing to talk about this as a
problem. They see this as a moral obligation to their employees and
their customers, but they also see it as part of their business. They
can't simply continue in business and serve people all over the world
if major economies could be ruined by one storm or if we see areas
flooded that are on our coast or the kind of weather we have seen in
the Midwest. It is bad for business, and they are willing to admit
that.
As a Senator from Minnesota with a strong ag industry and also a
tradition of hunting and fishing, I see climate change as a direct
threat to my State's economy for recreation. It is also a threat to our
State's heritage of enjoying the outdoors, whether that is snowmobiling
or whether that is our wildlife. We have seen some major changes to the
wildlife in our State.
I have always believed that an ``all of the above'' plan is necessary
to build a new energy agenda for America, but it must be an agenda that
recognizes the challenges of climate change. Someone who heads up the
EPA must believe in science. It is an Agency grounded in science.
Mr. Pruitt has also been quoted as saying ``the ethanol fuel mandate
is unworkable.'' I know he has changed some of his views since he was
nominated, but I, as a Senator from a State that relies on renewable
fuels as one of our major industries in the ag part of our State, must
look at his entire record and what he has actually said when he has
been in positions of power.
How do I see the Renewable Fuel Standard? The Renewable Fuel Standard
has led to important advancements in clean energy, and the standard has
provided stability and predictability that have and will continue to
drive long-term investments in the renewable space.
Every time a new study is released on the subject, I become even more
convinced that investments in renewable fuels are investments in the
future health of our economy and our environment. A recent study by ABF
Economics showed that the ethanol industry generated $7.37 billion in
gross sales in 2015 for Minnesota businesses and $1.6 billion in income
for Minnesota households. Here is a big one: The ethanol industry also
supports over 18,000 full-time jobs in Minnesota.
Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that renewable fuels
are important as a home-grown economic generator. They also are about
10 percent of our fuel supply in the United States. That is a
competitor for oil. When we have that kind of competition, that allows
us to have everything from electric cars to other kinds of renewables,
and we should not simply rely on the oil industry to fuel our vehicles.
Renewable fuels are an important competitor.
As I mentioned, there is strong bipartisan support for renewable
fuels. I have worked closely with many friends across the aisle for
many years on this issue. And, of course, the further ethanol and
renewable fuels take us, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil.
We need and want a mixed fuel supply.
Now is not the time to waiver on support for renewable fuels. The EPA
Administrator has many flexibilities under the law to slow or make
changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, and that is why I am concerned
about the past record of this nominee on this important issue.
Another reason we need consistent and effective leadership at the EPA
is in the fight to maintain and restore the Great Lakes. Our Great
Lakes contain 90 percent of our Nation's supply of fresh surface water
and supply drinking water to 30 million Americans. And our economy? The
Great Lakes' combined economic impact is so enormous that restoration
alone is estimated to provide $50 billion in long-term economic
benefits. That is why last year's Water Infrastructure Improvements for
the Nation Act reauthorized the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
These projects have helped eliminate toxins from our waters, combat
invasive species--something very critical in my State with invasive
carp--protect against pollution, restore habitats for fish and
wildlife, and promote the overall health.
The Administrator of the EPA is responsible for leading efforts to
implement, administer, and distribute grant funding across agencies
that undertake restoration activities. As I noted, Minnesota is home to
a thriving outdoor economy that relies on clean water, free of invasive
species. It is vital that our next EPA Administrator continue to take
action to stop the spread of invasive carp before they reach the Great
Lakes and many of our most important northern waters.
My background? My grandpa was an iron ore miner. He worked 1,500 feet
underground in the mines most of his life. Every day when he went down
in that cage, he would always think about what he would like to do in
the outdoors. He loved to hunt. About once a year, they would borrow a
car from my uncle. They would go to see Lake Superior, and he would
bring his sons to see Lake Superior.
I want an EPA Administrator that sees that, yes, you want a strong
economy, and yes, those things can work together with the environment,
but you also need to preserve that outdoors and wildlife and those
Great Lakes my grandpa and my family hold so dear.
Mr. Pruitt has articulated extreme views about the role of the EPA,
but there is a bigger problem here. We still don't know his full views
and record. My colleagues who sat on the Environment and Public Works
Committee have asked Mr. Pruitt to produce critical documents that will
clarify his record and vision for the EPA, and 19 times, Mr. Pruitt
told Senators they should get the information from his attorney
general's office. Well, they tried
[[Page S1265]]
and they have not succeeded. The Oklahoma attorney general's office
told them that they have a 2-year backlog for such requests. In
committee questions for the record, my colleagues asked Mr. Pruitt to
clear the backlog and provide the committee with these communications.
Once again, he declined. Mr. Pruitt has not provided the Senate with
the information we need to make an informed decision about his
nomination.
The EPA Administrator will be entrusted with protecting the health
and well-being of Americans. This is a tremendous responsibility. That
is why Americans deserve a clear picture of Mr. Pruitt's record on
protecting public health, clean air, and clean water, including a
review of the emails that were ordered to be released today.