[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1265-S1268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                 Russia

  Now, Mr. President, I would like to turn to another topic. Actually, 
after watching parts of the President's lengthy and unpredictable news 
conference today, I came upon some of the parts dealing with Russia. I 
thought it was important that I come down to the floor and address 
them.
  The part of the press conference that I saw was where the President 
referred to the reporting that has been done on Russia as fake news. 
The reporting that has been done about all of the contacts between 
members of his campaign and the Russian intelligence agencies--I assume 
he includes the reporting that has been done on the phone call that was 
made to the Russian Ambassador--and the various other reporting that we 
have seen--that is very troubling about this administration's dealing 
with Russia from the campaign time, to the transition, to the present.
  I would just like to say that this is far from fake news; this is 
fact. And if you don't believe it is fact, then that means you don't 
believe 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and that instead you take the 
word of Russians, Russian intelligence and Putin's word. I go with our 
17 U.S. intelligence agencies that have made it very clear that Russia 
had been attempting to influence our election.
  This was borne out to me when Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I 
visited the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia at the end of last year in 
December. What we saw there and what we heard there makes us know that 
this is not just one single incident of Russia trying to influence one 
candidate's campaign or even one election or even one country's 
election, but that this is a modus operandi, that they have done this 
before. They did it in Estonia when they were mad that they moved a 
statue. What did they do? They shut down their internet. They did it in 
Lithuania when the Lithuanians had the audacity to invite members of 
the Ukrainian Parliament who were in exile because they were part of 
the legally annexed Crimea. Lithuania invites them to their 25th 
anniversary celebration of their independence from Russia. What 
happens? Russia attacks the accounts of members of the Lithuanian 
Parliament.
  I have already expressed deep concern about this administration's 
lack of transparency on a variety of critical issues, but nowhere is 
this more true than when it comes to this administration's interactions 
with the Russian Government. For months, U.S. intelligence agencies 
have said that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful 
propaganda--$200 million worth--to try to undermine our democracy. 
Reports show it and the facts prove it.
  Unlike what the President said today at the press conference, this is 
not fake news. Last week, in fact, we learned that the very day 
President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for their unprecedented 
attacks on our democracy, a member of the Trump transition team spoke 
to a senior Russian official regarding those sanctions and then did not 
tell the truth about it. The National Security Advisor--the person 
charged with the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security--
misled the Vice President and, in turn, the American people. We have 
now seen two people resign: the campaign manager for Trump's campaign 
and the National Security Advisor. And one of the things they have in 
common is Russia and a relationship with Russia.
  So, no, this is not what the President said at his press conference 
today or earlier in a tweet. This is not about some kind of sour 
grapes--those were not his words but his implication about the loss of 
Hillary Clinton. That is not what this is. This is not about her loss 
in the last campaign. No. These are facts that have emerged since that 
time that I think are important to everyone.
  I appreciated the words a few months ago from Senator Rubio, who said 
that this is not about one campaign, this is not about one election, 
because it could quickly turn on the other party. We have an obligation 
as Senators to protect our democracy. That is what this is about--to 
make sure we have fair and free elections that are not influenced by 
foreign governments.
  Today, Secretary Mattis said that Russia's behavior is aggressive and 
destabilizing. I thought that was a good caricature of not only what we 
have seen in our own country but also what we have seen overseas. And 
then he went on to say that right now we are not negotiating from a 
position of strength. Well, that is certainly true when our own 
President then, a few hours later, takes to the stage and says that 
this is simply fake news and that we are talking about Russia's 
aggression as some kind of response to the loss in the last campaign.
  We need to know the full extent of the administration's contact with 
the Russian Government during the campaign and transition, including 
what was said, what was done, and who knew about it. Only then will we 
answer that fourth ``w.'' Who, what, where--it is the only way we are 
going to answer why. Why is this administration so focused on trying to 
placate Russia?

  I recently joined Senators Cardin, Leahy, Feinstein, and Carper--this 
was early January--to introduce legislation that would create an 
independent, nonpartisan commission to look at the facts and to make 
recommendations about how we can handle future elections so they will 
be free and safeguarded from foreign interference. This would, of 
course, be in addition to the thorough investigation that I have been 
ensured will occur with the Intelligence Committee under the leadership 
of Senators Burr and Warner.
  In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the three branches 
of government and our system of checks and balances. One of the 
fundamental jobs of Congress is to closely oversee the executive branch 
to ensure that the law is being properly followed and enforced. I think 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand how important that 
is.
  I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, and one of our 
jobs is to oversee our election system. A big part of my job as the 
Democratic leader of this committee will be to ensure that our election 
system is safe from foreign interference in the future.
  Intelligence experts have been clear: Russian interference in our 
2016 election was not an anomaly. The threat of future tampering is 
real and immediate. As Senator Rubio said and I just noted, this time 
it was the Democrats who were attacked. Next time it could be a 
Republican. And it is not something that is limited to one party. 
Future threats could come in the form of more misinformation. They 
could range from using social media to disrupt the voting process to 
even hacking into State reporting websites to alter vote totals. 
Russia's goal is to create confusion and undermine people's trust in 
our democratic institutions. That is why they spent $200 million last 
year to fund the spread of fake news.
  We need solutions and not more problems. Just last week, the House 
voted to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, the only Federal 
agency charged with protecting American elections from hacking. As 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, I find this unconscionable. We 
have to do more, not less, to protect American elections from foreign 
interference.
  The EAC and the Department of Homeland Security were in communication 
with State election officials prior to election day promoting cyber 
security best practices. Our agencies have ensured that safeguards, 
like provisional ballots, would allow people to cast ballots even if 
their systems were hacked. We have to do more, not less, to support 
this effort. That is why I am currently developing legislation that

[[Page S1266]]

will protect our elections from foreign interference. We are going to 
work with the EAC, DHS, and all 50 States to protect voting systems and 
registration data bases from cyber security threats. We will also make 
sure State and local election officials have the resources they need to 
make these critical cyber security upgrades.
  Recent news events show us just how severe the problem is. Now we 
have to come up with the solutions. My Republican colleague, Senator 
McCain, got it right yesterday when he said this. This gets to the 
security issue that goes even beyond our elections:

       General Flynn's resignation also raises further questions 
     about the Trump administration's intentions toward Vladimir 
     Putin's Russia, including statements by the president 
     suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and 
     Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, 
     and threats to our NATO allies.

  The day that the Obama administration was imposing sanctions on 
Russia--and the Trump campaign was allegedly undermining those 
sanctions--I was with Senators McCain and Graham in Eastern Europe. The 
goal of our trip was to reenforce support for NATO and our allies in 
the face of increased Russian aggression. We visited the Baltics, 
Ukraine, and Georgia--countries on the frontlines of this fight, and 
they know Russia's playbook well.
  In our meetings with Presidents and Prime Ministers of those 
countries, it was increasingly evident that if we don't stop Russia 
now, cyber attacking against governments, political parties, 
newspapers, and companies will only get worse.
  This is a pattern of waging cyber attacks and military invasions 
against democratic governments across the world. Ukraine itself has 
been targeted by Russian hackers more than 6,500 times in just the past 
2 months--earlier I used the examples of Estonia and Lithuania, but 
6,500 times in just the past 2 months. Now we have evidence that Russia 
is working to undermine the elections in France and Germany.
  This is not just about defending our own democracy; it is about 
defending the democratic way of life and democracies across the world. 
We must be a united front in fighting Russian aggression, and we must 
make it clear to Russia that there are consequences to their actions. 
That is why I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce 
the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, legislation that would impose 
strong actions against Russia. These sanctions would address cyber 
attacks, human rights violations, and the illegal annexation of land in 
Ukraine and Georgia.

  The world continues to look to America for its steadfast, steady 
leadership. The United States, a beacon for freedom and democracy, must 
continue to stand up against Russian aggression. The leader of our 
country should not be calling those reports that have been 
substantiated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies ``fake news.'' That is 
what happened today.
  On New Years' Eve, together with Ukrainian President Poroshenko and 
Senators McCain and Graham, we stood at the border of eastern Ukraine, 
2 years after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, 2 years after the 
invasion of eastern Ukraine, 10,000 lives lost.
  Ukrainian soldiers stood, and they have continued to stand, 
protecting their homeland and defending their democracy. For years, our 
allies have been subject to aggression and invasions, but they are 
undeterred, unwilling to give up what they fought so hard for: 
independence, freedom, and democracy. If we are committed to ensuring 
that Russia's hacking invasions and blackmail do not go unchecked, we 
must do everything in our power to uncover the full extent of this 
interference in our own political system. As our allies stand there 
every day losing people on the frontlines, looking to us for support, 
looking to us, we cannot turn our own backs on an invasion--a cyber 
invasion on our own democracy. We must also stand up for independence, 
freedom, and democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to initially begin by thanking my 
colleague from Oklahoma for graciously allowing me to proceed first 
ahead of him. He is, as ever, a terrific colleague. I would like to 
associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota. I, 
too, led a bipartisan delegation--two Republican House Members and two 
Senate Democrats--to Eastern European in August and observed many of 
the same issues and concerns that she just raised and have joined her, 
along with 10 Republican Senators and 8 other Democratic Senators, in 
the legislation she mentioned. I think this is an important issue on 
which all of us should focus.
  Mr. President, let me turn to the matter at hand, the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt to serve as the director of the EPA. I thank my 
colleagues, many of whom have come to the floor to speak about the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and most essentially, my 
senior Senator and friend from my home State of Delaware, Tom Carper, 
ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, who has 
ably led this fight.
  I am glad to be able to join my colleagues to make clear why, in my 
view, someone who does not believe in a core Federal role in protecting 
the environment is not the right person to lead the Federal Agency 
charged with just that mission. It is possible that we in this Chamber 
have now forgotten why the Environmental Protection Agency was created 
in the first place. The idea of Federal protection of our environment 
really started to take hold when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, again, 
in June of 1969. The public outrage that rightfully followed this near-
spontaneous combustion of a river helped lead to the EPA's creation in 
1970 and the passage of the Clean Air Act the same year and the Clean 
Water Act in 1972.
  Now, nearly a half century later, it is precisely because these laws 
and others like them have been successful in making us healthier and 
safer that it is easy to forget why we need them.
  Institutions like the EPA don't run themselves. The environment does 
not protect itself, and big oil and gas and coal companies certainly 
don't police themselves. That is why the EPA exists. You would 
certainly hope that at the very least the Administrator of that Agency 
would support that core mission. Yet this evening we are considering 
the nomination of someone whose main experience with environmental 
protection at the Federal level is filing lawsuits against the Federal 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  In fact, he has filed 14 of those lawsuits in just 6 years as 
attorney general of the State of Oklahoma. That is not all he has done. 
Scott Pruitt, in his confirmation hearing, refused to recuse himself 
from consideration of future cases which he brought against the EPA if 
confirmed.
  Mr. Pruitt has also suggested that Senators who want more information 
about the details of his record should file FOIA requests rather than 
providing that information voluntarily. He has described himself as ``a 
leading advocate against the Federal EPA's activist agenda.'' Scott 
Pruitt has not been able to name in confirmation hearings one single 
environmental protection statute he supports. In my view, that is 
unacceptable for a State attorney general let alone someone nominated 
to be our Nation's highest ranking environmental protection official.
  Mr. Pruitt's disdain for the core mission of the EPA leaves me 
without a doubt that he is unfit to take on this important role, but 
that is not all. Scott Pruitt either ignores or is ignorant of the core 
and important science of climate change, mercury, lead exposure, ocean 
acidification, to name just a few of many topics uncovered in his 
confirmation hearing.
  Mr. Pruitt acknowledges the climate is changing but says the role, 
the influence of human activity is ``subject to debate.'' I am here to 
say this evening, that is simply not true. Only in an alternative 
universe, based on alternative facts, is the human impact on climate 
change still subject to debate. That is like saying that Scott Pruitt 
is fit to lead the EPA is subject to debate. I think after an 
exhaustive confirmation hearing and a review on the floor of the facts, 
it is not. It is simply not true.
  Scott Pruitt also led a lawsuit against EPA rules that would reduce 
mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants. He argued it was too 
expensive, too burdensome, but he also questioned whether mercury 
itself was

[[Page S1267]]

harmful to health. On that issue, the science is clear. Mercury has 
devastating effects on the development of the human nervous system.
  Does Mr. Pruitt not get that or does he not care? Those are pressing 
questions for me. During his confirmation process, Mr. Pruitt was 
confused about ocean acidification, a process explained by very basic 
science. A question I was left with was whether Mr. Pruitt just did not 
get it or just did not care.
  In that same hearing, he made statements that indicated he was 
unfamiliar with the Federal standards regarding lead in drinking water. 
I had to ask myself whether he simply has not heard of Flint, MI, or 
was not concerned.
  My office alone has received nearly 1,000 calls and emails from 
Delawareans expressing concern about Scott Pruitt and the future of the 
EPA under his potential leadership, expressing concern and opposition. 
Delawareans have reached out to me saying they are worried about their 
kids with asthma; they are worried about clean drinking water for their 
families; they are worried about protecting our rivers, our wetlands, 
and other outdoor spaces in Delaware and around the country.
  With Scott Pruitt potentially at the helm of the EPA, they are right 
to be worried. Let me end by sharing a brief excerpt of a letter from 
one of my constituents who lives in my hometown of Wilmington, DE. She 
wrote:

       Please vote against Scott Pruitt as leader of the EPA. Our 
     children's future, their health and well-being, and their 
     right to inherit a world we have not irreversibly destroyed 
     may depend on it.

  She is absolutely right. Our kids do deserve a better environmental 
future. To her and all the Delawareans who have contacted me and my 
friend and colleague from my home State, I hear you. I intend to vote 
against Scott Pruitt. If my colleagues in the Senate really want to 
stop pollution, we can start by keeping Scott Pruitt from going to lead 
the EPA.
  Our environment should not be for sale, should not be neglected, and 
should not be turned aside from being the core mission of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I think we all should stand firm 
against the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead that important Agency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is an absolute honor to be able to 
rise and speak in support of Attorney General Scott Pruitt. For the 
last 6 years, Scott has been a leader in the State of Oklahoma. He has 
been strongly committed to enforcing the law in Oklahoma as it is 
written and as is consistent with the Constitution. He is a statesman. 
He is a dedicated public servant.
  As the Administrator of the EPA, I fully expect Scott to be able to 
lead the Agency to follow every environmental law and to partner with 
States, local authorities, and tribes to do what is best for the 
present and for the future. I have heard some people talk about their 
opposition to Scott's nomination, saying they don't believe Scott 
believes in clean air, in clean water.
  That is not the issue for Scott. Scott absolutely believes in clean 
air and clean water, and the accusations that somehow he wants dirty 
air and dirty water and our children to be poisoned is ludicrous.
  The question for Scott is not if we should have clean air and clean 
water, it is who is the primary steward of our clean air and our clean 
water. Everyone has a role. We are a nation that is connected to each 
other. What happens in one State does affect another State. That is why 
we have a national strategy working with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, but in the Clean Water Act and in the Clean Air Act, the States 
are given primary responsibility through what is called a State 
Implementation Plan to determine what is in their best interests and 
the best solutions to be able to deal with the issues of air and water.
  Scott has fought for the State to be allowed to be in the driver's 
seat with regard to all of the State resources, arguing for those that 
work in wind farms, in oilfields, and on cattle ranches, for families 
who have drinking water and breathe the air and who live there. The 
people who should have the loudest voices should be the people who 
actually drink that water and breathe that air and understand the 
effects of it firsthand.
  He has not been alone in this fight. As the attorney general of 
Oklahoma, he stood shoulder to shoulder with more than half of the 
States to ensure the Federal Government operates within the bounds of 
the statutes and the Constitution. He has consistently argued that the 
EPA, when they promulgate rules that violate that basic principle of 
the State Implementation Plan, should stop, do what the EPA does best, 
and have the EPA push the States to do what they should do best.
  In an environment where Chevron deference is the precedent set, it is 
critical that the leader of an Agency that has such wide latitude to 
extract costs out of the economy, should respect the federalist 
foundation we have, and the pocketbooks of hard-working families, as 
well as our air and our water.
  In previous congressional testimony, he stressed the importance of 
laws like the Clean Air Act, stressing that the intention was for 
States to work together under a model of cooperative federalism that 
protects the environment while considering economic costs.
  Scott pursued cases against the EPA and other Federal agencies in an 
effort to enable and embolden our State government officials to craft 
the legislation that needs to be done. His focus has been not to 
eliminate environmental protections, it is to honor a country with 
tremendous diversity, from rocky mountains to open deserts, to 
beautiful woodland areas.
  Surprisingly enough, the issues that we face on our environment, in 
the concrete jungle of Washington, DC, is different than it is in 
Woodward, OK. Let me give you an example of one of those cases that he 
engaged in. It is a case where the EPA created a new regulation called 
waters of the United States. It dramatically changed the definition of 
what are the areas the EPA can oversee and increased their regulatory 
authority by millions of acres in just one regulatory sweep.
  The courts immediately stepped in and stopped this, and Scott Pruitt 
and many other States' attorneys general said: The EPA does not have 
the right to be able to step into almost every inch of our State and 
say they suddenly have regulatory authority.
  In fact, the court said this: ``We conclude that petitioners have 
demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of 
their claims.''
  Furthermore, they said this: ``What is of greater concern to us, in 
balancing the harms, is the burden--potentially visited nationwide on 
government bodies, state and federal, as well as private parties.''
  The court stepped in and agreed with Scott Pruitt that the EPA was 
overreaching, and that case is still in the courts right now. That is a 
reasonable thing to be able to do, for an attorney general who has the 
responsibility to not only manage the legal issues of the State but 
also to watch out for the consumers of the State. As funny as it 
sounds, if you go to the EPA's website today and look at Oklahoma and 
air quality, here is what it says. The EPA website today reads: ``CAA 
permitting in Oklahoma. Clean Air Act permitting in Oklahoma is the 
responsibility of the Air Quality Division Exit of the Oklahoma 
Department of Environmental Quality.''
  The EPA's website today says responsibility for this is from the 
Department of Environmental Quality in Oklahoma.
  All our attorney general has done is said to the EPA: You should 
probably follow the law or at least your own website to be able to 
handle all of the permitting issues of who has authority to do this. 
For the past month, I have heard Senator after Senator come to this 
floor and describe my great State of Oklahoma in a way that makes Scott 
Pruitt sound like an ogre and my State sound like a toxic waste dump.
  Let me give you an example. Attorney General Pruitt has been 
dismissed by some who say that he has personally been engaged in 
leading our State to such terrible air quality that the American Lung 
Association has given the counties in Oklahoma an F rating.
  Well, that is an interesting accusation, until you actually go to the 
American Lung Association website

[[Page S1268]]

and see that they give almost every county in America an F rating. In 
fact, they give every county in Delaware an F rating in air quality. 
They categorize those under ``high ozone days'' and one of three 
counties just barely skated by with a D in particle pollution for 
Delaware, while in Oklahoma the two largest metropolitan areas actually 
received an A from the American Lung Association. Similarly, in that 
same study, Rhode Island lacks a single county that doesn't get an F 
for air quality on high ozone days, while only two counties received 
passing grades for particulate pollution.
  The accusation that somehow the American Lung Association has looked 
at Scott Pruitt and his record on environmental policy and has given us 
dirty air quality is not actually true when you see the full study.
  What is interesting, as well, is that the EPA publishes data about 
whether counties meet the national ambient air quality standards, and 
they have six criteria that the EPA puts out. In fact, recently they 
dropped their criteria significantly from the previous years. What is 
interesting, as well, is that for Oklahoma, last week, the EPA released 
their national ambient air quality standards, trying to determine which 
counties had attainment of the standard or nonattainment. Guest what. 
Every single county in Oklahoma--all 77--have attainment. Even as to 
the new standard that was just released, that we don't even have to 
operate under, we already meet those standards for ambient air quality.
  Meanwhile, Maryland has 12 counties in nonattainment for at least 1 
of those criteria. Connecticut has eight counties that don't meet those 
standards. California has 38 of their 58 counties failing to meet those 
standards in at least 1 criteria. There are 77 counties in Oklahoma, 
and every single one of them meets attainment.
  I don't hear anyone standing on this floor challenging the attorney 
general of California or of Maryland or of Connecticut and demonizing 
them and accusing them of not taking care of the air and the water in 
their State.
  By the way, I have also heard on this floor, as my State is being 
ripped apart for political gain, over and over that asthma rates for 
children are catastrophically high in Oklahoma and that Scott Pruitt 
should have been more engaged, filing lawsuits so that asthma rates 
would go down--until you look at the CDC website for asthma rates for 
children. It is 10.1 in Oklahoma. One child is too many. It is 10.1 
percent in our State, but you can compare that to Rhode Island, which 
is 12.4; or Michigan, which is 10.7. Vermont beat us, by the way. They 
are 9.9--0.2 below us.
  Again, I don't hear anyone on this floor calling out the attorneys 
general of Vermont, Michigan, and Rhode Island and saying they failed 
to protect their children because children have asthma in their State.
  Another thing that is commonly said about Scott Pruitt and the State 
of Oklahoma is that he is committed to conventional energy sources and 
that he is stuck in the past, dealing with oil and gas.
  I will tell you that Oklahoma is rightfully right proud of its 
history of oil and gas in our State. We have unlocked resources that 
have absolutely powered our Nation forward. We also have an incredible 
group of visionaries in our State that are driving renewable resources 
as fast as we are driving oil and gas in our State.
  For all the folks that are here bashing oil and gas, I would remind 
you that you traveled to Washington, DC, on a plane, in a car, or on a 
train that was powered by Oklahoma energy. So you are welcome. And I 
will assume that, 2 weeks from now, when we return back for session, 
you are going to ride in on a horse just to be able to spite Oklahoma's 
energy--probably not. But can I remind you of something?
  What is often overlooked about Oklahoma and what has not been stated 
here is that Oklahoma truly is an all-of-the-above energy State--solar, 
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, oil, gas, and coal.
  Let me give you an example--just one of the examples from that. 
Recent data shows that Oklahoma ranks third nationally in total wind 
power. We just passed California for total wind production. We are just 
barely behind Iowa and Texas. The installed capacity for Oklahoma 
alone--just in wind generation--is 1.3 million households powered by 
wind power out of Oklahoma.
  I will admit that I am a little biased about my State. But I am weary 
of hearing people inaccurately demean the air and water in Oklahoma and 
try to accuse it of something that is not true for their political 
benefit.
  Here is my invitation to any Member of this body. Why don't you come 
home to Oklahoma with me? I will buy you some great barbecue and drive 
you around the State. I will take you through the Green Country in the 
northeast part of the State, over to Kenton, OK, and Black Mesa to see 
the majestic area around our panhandle. We will drive four-wheelers in 
Little Sahara, and maybe we will drive down to Beavers Bend Park, stand 
under the tall trees, and put our feet in the crystal clear water of 
that river. I will even take you to my house in Oklahoma City, a 
community of a million people that exceeds the EPA air quality 
standards for ambient air quality.
  We say in Oklahoma: ``The land we belong to is grand,'' and we mean 
it. We are passionate about our land, and we are passionate about our 
air and water. I will tell you that Scott Pruitt is passionate about 
his State and what we do there.
  I will tell you how political this has really become. Mike Turpen is 
the former attorney general of the State of Oklahoma and, by the way, 
he is also the former chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party. Mike 
Turpen, when it was announced that Scott Pruitt was going to be tapped 
to be head of the EPA, released this statement:

       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a good choice to 
     head up the Environmental Protection Agency. I am convinced 
     Scott Pruitt will work to protect our natural habitats, 
     reserves and resources. His vision for a proper relationship 
     between protection and prosperity makes him superbly 
     qualified to serve as our next EPA administrator.

  That is from the former head of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.
  So far, my colleagues have found a good reason for every Cabinet 
nominee to delay, delay, delay. This has now been the slowest 
confirmation process for any President since George Washington. The 
tradition has always been that the President won an election, and he 
should be able to hire his own staff and his own Cabinet and get busy 
going to work. That is what the American people asked him to do.
  Scott Pruitt deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves our trust 
to be able to take on and follow the law, doing what the EPA requires 
him to do.
  Scott Pruitt is a friend. I understand that some of the folks who 
have attacked him have only met him at a hearing or read about him on 
some blog site. But I have prayed with Scott. I have seen Scott 
struggle with the hard decisions that affect our State's future. I have 
seen Scott listen to people from all sides of an issue, and I have seen 
him take difficult stands. I think he will be an excellent EPA 
Administrator, and I think he will make some wise choices to not only 
protect what is happening now but to be able to help protect us for the 
future.
  You see, Scott is a husband and a dad as well, and he cares also 
about the future of our country. I think he is going to go after it, 
and he will be able to be an excellent Administrator in the days ahead.