[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.