[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1268-S1275]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Tribute to Bryan Berky

  Mr. President, I would like to take a quick moment just to be able to 
reflect. I have a staff member named Bryan Berky. He is running off. He 
has been quite a leader. He is leaving us to be able to take on a new 
task and a new role.
  Since 2010, he has been a tremendous asset to the Senate. Bryan Berky 
is a student of Senate procedures. He is the one in the office whom 
everyone wishes they had because, when something comes up and someone 
has some novel new idea of how the rules work, he is typically the one 
on the corner saying: Yes, that really won't work, and here is why.
  He has been sharp on budget issues, on tax issues, and efficiency in 
government. He has been the one who has been passionate about the 
national debt--and not just talking about national debt but actually 
trying to solve it.
  You see, Bryan Berky is one of those unique staffers not trying to 
make a

[[Page S1269]]

point. He is trying to actually solve the problem.
  He was mentored by a guy named Dr. Tom Coburn, who wasn't too bad on 
those issues himself. He has led well, and I am proud that he has been 
on my staff.
  As he leaves from the Senate, he will be sorely missed by this whole 
body--even by people who never met him. He had an impact, based on the 
things that he worked on.
  If you want to get a chance to visit with Bryan Berky, though, you 
can talk about Senate procedures, tax policy, and nerdy budget issues 
or you can chat with him about Oklahoma State football. He spent his 
time through college working for the Oklahoma State football team, 
watching the films and breaking down every single play, preparing the 
team for practice and for the game days.
  He is a great student of people and of process.
  I just want to be able to pass on to the Presiding Officer that there 
is a guy named Bryan Berky who is leaving the Senate in the next week, 
and he will be sorely missed by this Senate and by our team in the days 
ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, last year was the hottest year on record, 
and 16 of the last 17 years have been the warmest years ever recorded. 
Climate change science is some of the most thoroughly established and 
well-tested research in history, and 97 percent of the published 
research says climate change is real and caused by humans.
  Climate change is an urgent threat to our health, our national 
security, and our economy. How we address it is what we need to debate, 
not whether it is real.
  As I have said before, I will work with anyone in this Chamber--
Republican or Democrat--to address this issue. That is appropriate 
because survey after survey of people in Colorado--a State that is a 
third Democratic, a third Republican, and a third Independent--
demonstrates that they believe the science, no matter which party they 
belong to.
  In a very welcome sign, just last week, a group of statesmen, 
including former Secretary of State James Baker III, former Secretary 
of State George Shultz, and former Secretary of the Treasury Henry 
Paulson, Jr.,--all Republicans--released what they described as a 
``conservative climate solution.''
  These distinguished leaders have come together at just the right 
moment--at the perfect moment--because our new President says that he 
is ``not a big believer'' in climate change. In fact, he claimed during 
the campaign that climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese to 
make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.
  Consistent with that view, the President's nominee to run the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, recently said that the 
debate over climate change is quote ``far from settled.'' He wondered 
in December whether global warming is ``true or not,'' whether it is 
caused by humans and whether the Earth is cooling instead of heating. 
As attorney general of Oklahoma, he sought to prevent the very Agency 
he has been nominated to lead from fighting climate change, suing the 
EPA 14 times.

  It is important, I guess, to note that while it is rare for somebody 
in America to share these views, Attorney General Pruitt is not alone 
in his extreme views in the new President's Cabinet. Rick Perry, the 
nominee to be Secretary of Energy, wrote in his book that climate 
science is ``all one contrived phony mess'' and that the Earth is 
actually ``experiencing a cooling trend.'' Ben Carson, the nominee to 
run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said: ``It is not 
clear if temperatures are going up or going down.'' Rex Tillerson, the 
new Secretary of State, said: ``None of the models agree on how climate 
change works.'' Mr. Trump's CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, said: ``There 
are scientists who think lots of different things about climate 
change.''
  When the Pope was talking about the importance of addressing climate 
change, which he said was a very real threat, there was an American 
politician who said that the Pope should stick to religion and that he 
wasn't a scientist. In fact, the Pope studied chemistry. I am glad he 
is using his voice on this important issue.
  To be clear, some nominees seem to have undergone a confirmation 
process evolution on climate, but this seems more an effort to hide 
their extreme views in an effort to be confirmed rather than a genuine 
conversion based on facts or science, and that is a shame because the 
world cannot wait for this administration to stop ignoring the science.
  Over the past 150 years, human activity has driven up greenhouse gas 
levels in our atmosphere higher and faster than at any time over the 
last 400,000 years. That is not surprising because we have pumped 
almost 400 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the 
start of the Industrial Revolution. As a result, carbon dioxide 
concentrations have risen from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per 
million for the first time in recorded history. That significant change 
over an insignificant period of time is dramatically changing the 
Earth. These emissions act like closed car windows: They allow light 
and heat in, but they don't allow most of the heat to ever escape.
  Already, record heating has melted ice sheets as large as Texas, 
Georgia, and New York combined, adding billions of tons of water to our 
oceans every year. These rising seas have partially submerged cities in 
Florida and Georgia several times per year. They threaten 31 towns and 
cities in Alaska with imminent destruction. They are forcing a city in 
Louisiana to relocate its residents away from what is now an almost 
permanently flooded coast. By 2030, there won't be any glaciers left in 
Montana's Glacier National Park.
  While extreme events and natural disasters become more frequent, so 
do the effects climate change has on our daily lives. In my home State, 
7 out of 10 Coloradans know that climate change is happening, and 
nearly half say they have personally experienced its effects. Shorter 
winters are already a threat to Colorado's $4.8 billion ski and 
snowboard industry and its 46,000 jobs.
  Since the snow is melting sooner, there is not enough water for what 
are now longer summers. Colorado's farmers are forced to grow food with 
less water, a changing growing season, and higher temperatures. Our 
agriculture industry employs over 170,000 Coloradans and contributes 
more than $40 billion a year to our economy. These changes are not only 
threatening farmers' livelihoods, they are changing production and food 
prices at grocery stores.
  Our beer industry is even weighing in. This week, I received a letter 
from 32 brewers from around the country, including three from Colorado, 
who oppose Scott Pruitt's nomination because they depend on America's 
clean water resources to brew their beer.
  Hotter summers and the droughts they prolong cause wildfires that now 
burn twice as much land every year than they did 40 years ago. 
Together, State and Federal agencies are paying nearly $4 billion a 
year to fight those fires. Warmer waters and drought are hurting 
animals everywhere, like our cutthroat trout populations in Colorado. 
That is not just a problem for the fish; in Colorado, rivers generate 
more than $9 billion in economic activity every year, including 
supporting nearly 80,000 jobs.
  As warmer temperatures increase and spread across regions, so do 
incidents of vector-borne diseases like the West Nile virus and the 
hantavirus. And what do we do when we have longer, hotter summers? We 
crank up the air-conditioning, burning more fossil fuel and only 
perpetuating the problem.
  I understand that sometimes it is hard to focus on climate change 
when the effects seem distant, but it should be impossible to ignore 
the immediate national security threat posed by climate change that is 
here today. Here in the Senate, in 2015, we passed a budget amendment 
with bipartisan support to promote ``national security by addressing 
human-induced climate change.'' That is what the amendment said. It got 
bipartisan support.
  The former Secretary of Defense, the former Director of National 
Intelligence, and the former admiral in charge of U.S. Naval forces in 
the Pacific have all warned us that climate change is a threat to our 
national security.

[[Page S1270]]

  Around the world, climate change is increasing natural disasters, 
refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water, 
complicating American involvement and security. Climate change is 
linked to drought and crop loss and failure in southern Africa, leaving 
more than 6 million children malnourished by famine. It is increasing 
monsoons and heat waves in Pakistan, driving 11 million people out of 
their homes. It is even connected to water and food shortages that have 
intensified civil unrest from Egypt to Syria.
  At home, climate change already has cost us billions to relocate and 
buffer military infrastructure from coastal erosion and protect 
military installations from energy outages. At the U.S. Atlantic Fleet 
in Norfolk, VA, the largest naval installation in the world, sea levels 
have risen over 1 foot in the past 100 years. All the systems that 
support military readiness, from electrical utilities to housing at 
that base, are vulnerable to extreme flooding.
  When the Department of Defense ``recognizes the reality of climate 
change''--those are their words--``and the significant risk it poses to 
U.S. interests globally,'' we should listen. When the Nation's most 
recent national security strategy says that ``climate change is an 
urgent and growing threat,'' we should act.
  As a Senator from Colorado, I understand very well why people 
sometimes are frustrated when the EPA, for instance, does take action--
or sometimes when it doesn't take action.

  There are certainly some regulations that don't make sense, where a 
well-intentioned idea or an ill-intentioned idea--I think they are 
usually well-intentioned--from Washington ends up not making sense when 
it hits the ground. That is why I fought to revise EPA fuel storage 
tank regulations that hurt Colorado farmers, ranchers, and businesses 
in my home State. I supported an amendment making the Agency take a 
look at a new regulation that burdens families trying to remodel older 
homes. There are other regulations that I voted to get rid of. I 
supported, for instance, lifting the export ban on crude oil from the 
United States of America, a bill that we passed last year in connection 
with a 5-year extension of the tax credits for wind and solar energy, a 
great deal for the State of Colorado--both the lifting of the crude oil 
export ban and the extension of the tax credits for wind and solar.
  I have also supported and fought for our coal community. In Colorado, 
working with my colleague Senator Gardner, I fought to keep a Colorado 
mine open to protect good-paying jobs in my State. I am proud to have a 
hard hat in my office bearing the signatures of the people who work at 
that mine.
  I have to say tonight that the often-asserted claim that efforts to 
regulate carbon or more generally to protect our water and our air have 
significantly led to job losses in this country is false. This argument 
is a fraud perpetrated by politicians making promises that are broken 
from the start.
  The reality--and it is important to understand the reality so we can 
remedy the situation--the reality is that free market forces and not 
mostly Federal regulation are transforming American electricity 
production.
  American coal employment peaked in the early 1980s, long before we 
began seriously expanding natural energy. Natural gas has been gaining 
market share compared to coal since before 1990. Colorado, for example, 
has benefitted greatly from the natural gas boom. In almost every part 
of the United States, natural gas plants are now cheaper to build than 
coal plants. Facilities that were built when I became a Senator 8 years 
ago were built to import natural gas and are now being retrofitted to 
export natural gas to the rest of the world. That is good for our 
environment, and it is good for the geopolitical position of the United 
States.
  Innovation is making renewable electricity more affordable for 
everybody. Between 2008 and 2015, the cost of wind power fell 41 
percent. The cost of large-scale solar installations fell 64 percent. 
This has led to a 95-percent increase in solar deployment in 2016 over 
the previous year. The annual installation doubled in 1 year.
  If we truly want to support our world communities, we should listen 
to Teddy Roosevelt, who once said that ``conservation and rural-life 
policies are really two sides of the same policy; and down at the 
bottom this policy rests upon the fundamental law that neither man nor 
nation can prosper unless, in dealing with the present, thought is 
steadily given to the future.''
  The truth about the future is that there may be a lot of sound 
reasons to review, revisit, and even retire any number of Federal 
regulations, and I will bet there are, but cutting regulation will not 
reopen shuttered coal mines.
  It is not about regulations or the EPA or about a War on Coal. 
Economic factors, market factors are driving the shift from coal to 
natural gas and renewables, and we need to recognize this shift and 
help coal communities adapt to a changing energy economy. They have 
contributed to building the economic vitality of this country. Their 
work helped us win World War II. We have to recognize the contribution; 
we can't just turn our backs. But we also need to acknowledge what is 
causing the changes that are occurring in our energy production because 
if we can't acknowledge the causes, we can't fix the problem; we can't 
make a meaningful difference for people in the communities that are 
affected by these changes; we can't fulfill what have become empty 
political promises instead of making real commitments on behalf of the 
American people.
  We also have to take advantage of the changes in energy production to 
fuel economic growth and create new jobs. Already, renewable energy is 
creating jobs throughout the country. Energy efficiency employs 2.2 
million Americans. Solar and wind companies employ more than 360,000 
Americans, including more than 13,000 in my home State of Colorado. 
Colorado now ranks first in the country in wind energy manufacturing. 
All together, clean energy employment grew 29 percent between 2009 and 
2014 in Colorado.
  This isn't a Bolshevik plot, as I said on the floor before. These are 
American jobs. These are manufacturing jobs. These are plants where it 
is not just about the wind turbine but about all of the supply chain 
that goes along with it that can't be made in China and shipped to the 
United States and installed here. These jobs in this supply chain are 
American jobs. They are good jobs that pay a good wage, and they are 
meaningful to our economy. Last year, solar jobs grew 17 times faster 
than jobs in the rest of the national economy. They increased by 20 
percent in Colorado in 1 year.

  The expansion of natural gas, as I mentioned earlier, is also aiding 
our transition to a cleaner energy economy. Between 2005 and 2012, 
natural gas production grew by 35 percent in the United States. In 
Colorado, it expanded by 139 percent. Colorado now ranks sixth in the 
country in natural gas production as 10 of the Nation's 100 largest 
natural gasfields are now located in Colorado.
  These industries together create good-paying jobs that can't be 
exported overseas; and all of these changes, taken together, are 
beginning to address climate change. From 2008 to 2015, the American 
energy sector reduced its carbon emissions by 9.5 percent. We reduced 
our carbon emissions by almost 10 percent while the country's economy 
grew by more than 10 percent, and we are starting to see the same trend 
around the world. Global emissions stayed flat in 2015 while the global 
economy grew. Turning our backs on reality is not a recipe for job 
creation in this country, but embracing the reality is.
  So I would ask this new President, after the campaign he ran and the 
promises he made, why he would promote policies that will kill American 
jobs and industries. Unfortunately--I regret to say this--even though 
70 percent of Coloradoans say climate change is real and that humankind 
is contributing to it, the answer to my question about this 
administration's policies comes back to what it believes--to what it 
believes is a debate on climate change.
  If we allow science to become debatable, we can contort our thinking 
to fit any fiction at all to support or undermine any public policy. We 
risk discarding facts we don't like and ignoring experts with whom we 
don't agree in favor of special interests, which

[[Page S1271]]

often dominate our political system. Our country needs more from us 
than that. Our national defense demands more than that from us.
  When State Department analysts concluded with evidence, with science, 
that the Keystone Pipeline would not materially increase carbon 
emissions--facts lost in the phony debate here in Washington--I voted 
for it against intense opposition from my own party and many of my 
strongest supporters. That was a painful vote, one of the most painful 
I have ever taken and difficult to explain to many people I admire, but 
I was guided by the facts, not by politics, guided by the science, not 
by politics.
  We have always drawn strength as a country from our belief in 
science, our confidence in reason and evidence. It is what Harry Truman 
called our ``unflinching passion for knowledge and truth.'' In school, 
we teach children to support theories with facts and look to science to 
explain the world. When it comes to climate change, we cannot allow the 
narrow limits of political expediency and special interests to cloud 
our sound judgment. That is not a lesson we should be teaching our 
children who need us to act on climate. That would set a horrible 
example for the people who are coming after us.
  Our ultimate success in addressing climate change will rely on the 
same scientific method that sent us to the Moon and eradicated 
smallpox. If we surrender evidence to ideology, when it comes to 
climate change, we abandon the process of scientific inquiry. We leave 
ourselves completely unequipped to defend what we discover to be true. 
We loosen our grip on the science that allows us to understand that 
evolution is real and vaccines are effective; that something is true 
and something else is false. That, not doubt and denial, is the lesson 
we should leave our children; that we have the courage to confront this 
challenge without bias; that we have the wisdom to follow facts 
wherever they lead. That is what this Senate should do. That is what 
our country should do.
  We have seen the evidence now. It is not theoretical anymore that we 
can grow our economy, the fact that we will grow our economy, that we 
can conserve energy while we do it, that we can create entirely new 
industries and technologies to power the most significant economy that 
human beings have ever seen in the history of the world, and that we 
can deal with climate at the same time. The two are linked.
  Apparently, that is not what this President believes, and that is not 
what his nominee to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency believes. Because that is so far out of step with what Colorado 
believes and for all of the reasons I have talked about today and for 
the sake of our climate and for good-paying American jobs all over this 
country--but particularly in Colorado--I am compelled to vote no on the 
President's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next 
Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The reason is simple. In a choice between corporate polluters and 
people who want to breathe air and drink water, Scott Pruitt sides with 
the corporate polluters. He has no business being the head of the EPA.
  During his nomination hearing, Mr. Pruitt had countless opportunities 
to answer for his record. His responses were flippant, evasive, and 
outright misleading. He has been asked repeatedly to provide records 
from his office concerning dealings with big oil companies, but he told 
the Senators that, hey, they should submit an open records request, 
hoping that his confirmation would be over long before those documents 
would see the light of day.
  Just a few hours ago, an Oklahoma district court judge ordered a dose 
of sunshine for Mr. Pruitt's dirty dealings from his perch as attorney 
general of Oklahoma. The judge has demanded that Mr. Pruitt cough up 
more than thousands of emails pertaining to his cozy relationship with 
Big Oil--emails he has been hiding from Oklahoma open records requests 
for over 2 years, but the Republican leadership is not interested in 
waiting. Its plan is to jam this nomination through tomorrow--4 days 
before the emails are slated to become public.
  Are you kidding me?
  If those emails show corruption, every Senator should have that 
information before--not after--they vote to put someone in charge of 
the EPA who may be there for years.
  Clean air and clean water used to be a nonpartisan issue. In earlier 
decades, leaders in both parties had the courage to say no to 
suffocating smog and towering plumes of toxic chemicals poisoning our 
children. Republicans and Democrats came together, and together they 
declared that access to clean air and clean water was a basic right for 
all Americans. We passed the Clean Air Act, and we passed the Clean 
Water Act. We updated those laws when necessary, and we did those 
things together.
  Together, we depend on the Environmental Protection Agency for three 
critical reasons: The EPA is the cop on the beat, protecting American 
families from corporate polluters that would put profit ahead of 
safety. It watches out for us and for our children; the EPA exists 
because pollution knows no State borders. What is burned at the 
powerplant in Ohio is breathed by children across Massachusetts; and 
the EPA takes on the ever-changing task of researching, monitoring, and 
regulating toxic emissions because the job is far too great for any one 
State to tackle.
  To do all of this, the EPA routinely turns to local governments, 
businesses, and innovative workers for local solutions; the EPA turned 
to the University of Massachusetts to create a research center to 
assist smalltown water systems; the EPA turned to towns along Cape Cod 
and on Martha's Vineyard to pursue innovative solutions to increase 
coastal resiliency as sea levels have risen; and the EPA recently 
recognized New Bedford's exceptional work in monitoring industrial 
waste discharge in the city's collection system.
  Across Massachusetts and across the Nation, the EPA sets big national 
goals that help inspire ingenious local solutions. The EPA is one of 
our great successes as a nation, but that success has not come without 
a fight. Each time the EPA has taken a step to clean our air, industry 
has poured more and more money into the debate, yelling that regulation 
is just too costly and that companies can never survive if they have to 
clean up their act.
  In the 40 years following the Clean Air Act, emissions of common air 
pollutants fell nearly 70 percent while the number of private sector 
jobs doubled. Industry talks about the costs of pollution controls 
because dirty is cheap. Clean air saves more than 160,000 lives each 
year. Clean air saves more than 3 million schooldays our children would 
have collectively lost. Clean air saves 13 million workdays the hard-
working, healthy Americans simply can't afford to miss.
  Scott Pruitt doesn't measure success by this yardstick. No. He 
measures success by how happy his corporate donors are. As Big Oil's 
go-to attorney general from Oklahoma, Pruitt has spent the last 6 years 
trying to silence the lifesaving, data-driven work of dedicated EPA 
employees and scientists. And now, those big polluters have their 
fantasy EPA nominee--someone who will work on their side and not on the 
side of the American people.

  How about a couple of examples. When EPA issued a rule to limit 
mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemical emissions from coal 
powerplants, Mr. Pruitt questioned whether mercury poses a health 
hazard. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It means that it poisons 
the nervous system. And Scott Pruitt thinks he should question whether 
it poses any health hazard. Wow.
  Or maybe it is this example. When the EPA moved to reduce leaks of 
methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more potent than 
CO2, he turned the Oklahoma AG's office into a clearinghouse 
for big oil to pursue lawsuits attacking the EPA. Scott Pruitt has 
spent so much time with his campaign donors that he honestly appears 
incapable of understanding the difference between the financial 
interests of millionaires who run giant oil companies and the health 
and well-being of the 4

[[Page S1272]]

million human beings who actually live in Oklahoma.
  The people need a voice more than ever. For generations, Oklahoma has 
had very few earthquakes. Then, oil companies decided to up production, 
to pull every last drop of oil out of the ground. But with every drop 
of oil came useless, toxic radioactive salt water waste, and it has to 
go somewhere. So they took the cheapest option available: Pump billions 
of barrels of wastewater deep underground, under immense pressure, and 
that is when the problems started. Suddenly, earthquakes--big 
earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.0 and above, started occurring every 
day across Oklahoma.
  Here was Mr. Pruitt, the State attorney general, the people's lawyer. 
What did he do? Did he seek relief for the families that were stiffed 
by insurance companies? Did he join residents who were suing to stop 
the drilling while their homes crumbled? Did he even pretend to do 
something--you know, like maybe issue a strongly worded press release 
supporting frightened citizens? No, not Mr. Pruitt. No, Mr. Pruitt 
stood by his friends in the oil industry, and the heck with everybody 
else.
  Mr. Pruitt has been consistent in his work for big oil. As attorney 
general, he dismantled the environmental protection unit in his 
office--dismantled the environmental protection unit. He appointed a 
billionaire oil man to be his 2014 campaign chair, and he ignored the 
citizens he was sworn to protect. That is the measure of Mr. Pruitt as 
a public servant.
  A State attorney general is supposed to serve the people. Right now, 
Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey is leading the case to 
prove that ExxonMobil deliberately deceived the public about the impact 
of climate change on our economy, our environment, our health, and our 
future. Good for Maura. Did Scott Pruitt join that suit? Of course not. 
Pruitt ran to the defense of one of the world's largest corporations, 
whining about how that corporation felt bullied. Instead of working as 
the attorney general for Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has served as the 
attorney general for Exxon.
  Finally, Scott Pruitt has the nerve to say that the cause of climate 
change is ``subject to more debate.'' More debate? We had that debate 
in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in the 2000s. Maybe Mr. Pruitt missed it, 
buried under a pile of big oil money.
  So let me just offer a summary. For well over a century, we spewed 
fossil fuel filth into our atmosphere. And, yes, this allowed us to 
fuel the thirsty appetite of our 20th century economy. But that 
blistering pace came at a price.
  Our planet is getting hotter. Our coasts are threatened by furious 
storm surges that sweep away homes and devastate our largest cities. 
Our poorest neighborhoods are one bad storm away from being under 
water. Our naval bases are under attack--not by enemy ships but by 
rising seas; droughts and wildfires are all too familiar across the 
country. Refugees are fleeing homes that are no longer livable. And the 
risk of rapidly spreading diseases like malaria and Zika is on the 
rise.
  Our coastal communities don't have time for politicians who deny 
science. Our farmers don't have time for more debate. Our children 
don't have time for more cowards who will not stand up to big oil 
companies defrauding the American people.
  Scott Pruitt has been working hard for big oil to dismantle the EPA, 
and now, President Trump wants to give him that chance.
  Where are the Senators who will stand up for the health, the welfare, 
and the safety of their citizens? Where are the Senators who will stand 
up for the people's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water? 
Where are the Senators who will have the courage to demand action on 
climate change so that our children will have a chance to inherent a 
livable Earth?
  In the end, despite this despicable record, if the Republicans link 
arms again, there will not be enough of us to stop this nomination. But 
make no mistake, if President Trump wants a fight over the health of 
our children, a fight over the creation of clean energy jobs, a fight 
over the very future of our planet, then we will fight every step of 
the way.
  We will fight alongside moms and dads who know the terror of a 
childhood asthma attack. We will fight alongside the cancer victims. We 
will fight alongside the fishermen and the hunters. We will fight 
alongside the families of Flint, MI, and everywhere else in America 
where families cannot safely turn on their water taps or step outside 
and take a deep breath.
  We are all in this together.
  People in Massachusetts care deeply about preserving a safe and 
healthy environment for our kids and our grandkids. We see it as a 
moral question. And I receive letters from people all across the State, 
describing how important clean air and clean water are to them and how 
worried they are about what Scott Pruitt leading the EPA will mean for 
our most vital natural resources. I hear those concerns and I share 
those concerns.
  I would like to read just a few of the many letters that I have 
received about this nomination.
  Edward from Dennis wrote to me on behalf of the Association to 
Preserve Cape Cod about the importance of the EPA to coastal 
communities in Massachusetts. Here is Edward's letter:

       The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the Cape Cod 
     region's leading nonprofit environmental education and 
     advocacy organization, writes to state our strong opposition 
     to the appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt 
     for the position of Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. We urge you to vote against his 
     nomination.
       APCC is deeply concerned that Mr. Pruitt's record of 
     vigorously opposing the efforts of the EPA to protect the 
     nation's water and air quality is in direct conflict with his 
     responsibilities as EPA Administrator to ensure that the 
     agency's important work continues. In fact, his record 
     clearly shows that his loyalties side with polluters 
     instead of with the environment and the welfare of the 
     American people. Of particular concern is Mr. Pruitt's 
     refusal to accept the science of climate change and the 
     implications this has for EPA's ongoing efforts to reduce 
     greenhouse gas emissions.
       In addition, the EPA has most recently played a vital role 
     in furthering efforts to protect and restore water quality 
     through its Southeast New England Program (SNEP) for 
     Watershed Restoration, a program that has greatly benefited 
     coastal communities in Rhode Island and southeastern 
     Massachusetts. We worry that important initiatives such as 
     the SNEP program, which was originally proposed by Senator 
     Reed with the strong support from each of you, will be in 
     jeopardy under the oversight of Mr. Pruitt, should he be 
     confirmed as EPA Administrator.
       The New England states, as well as the entire nation, have 
     made significant strides forward in addressing the protection 
     of our air and water. However, much more needs to be 
     accomplished. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to step 
     backward in our effort to protect the environment. We, 
     therefore, urge you to oppose the nomination of Mr. Pruitt 
     for EPA Administrator.

  Thanks, Edward, for writing, and thanks to all of you at the 
Association to Preserve Cape Cod for the work you are doing every 
single day. It makes a real difference.
  While all sorts of people have written to my office about Mr. Pruitt, 
I have noticed that a lot of people are writing in about kids--their 
kids, kids they work with, or just kids in general. My constituents are 
concerned about Scott Pruitt's commitment to protecting the air our 
kids breathe and the water they drink, and I share those concerns.
  I heard from Mary in Worcester, who is concerned about the effects of 
environmental toxins like lead on children. She is concerned both as a 
parent and as a family doctor. Here is what Mary had to say:

       With so much focus in Washington on ensuring politicians 
     are held to a strong ethical standard, I ask you to oppose 
     the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. I wrote 
     to you yesterday asking the same, but after the hearing 
     yesterday, it is increasingly clear that Mr. Pruitt is unfit.
       In addition to being a parent, I am also a Family Medicine 
     physician. Rarely, I see children who are exposed to lead 
     through environmental sources. This is rare because lead has 
     been regulated, and as such rates of lead poisoning, and the 
     accompanying irreversible brain damage, have plummeted.
       But yesterday Mr. Pruitt revealed that he knows nothing 
     about this issue, responding to Senator Cardin, ``Senator, 
     that is something I have not reviewed nor know about.''
       I continue to ask you to oppose him and to encourage 
     colleagues to do the same.

  Thank you for writing, Mary. That is why I am here tonight--to 
encourage my colleagues to oppose him.
  I heard from Elizabeth in Belchertown, as well. Here is what she 
wrote:

       As a resident of MA and a teacher of AP Environmental 
     Science in a public high

[[Page S1273]]

     school in western MA, I am writing to express my concern 
     about the appointment of Scott Pruitt as director of the EPA. 
     He appears to be the exact opposite of the qualifications and 
     perspective of a person who should have that position. As you 
     know, he has close ties to fossil fuels, has repeatedly sued 
     the EPA, avoided mercury legislation, and espoused the belief 
     that the EPA is too powerful. I urge you to work with other 
     Senators to block this appointment.

  Thank you, Elizabeth. The work that you are doing, that teachers are 
doing, is more vital than ever now, and I share your concerns. Thank 
you.
  A man from Boston wrote to me with concerns about Scott Pruitt's ties 
to fossil fuel companies, and here is what he said:

       As a constituent who cares about our environment, I want 
     you to know I am deeply concerned about the nomination of 
     Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
       Scott Pruitt is firmly in the pocket of the oil and gas 
     industry. He is not concerned with the world we leave for our 
     children. As a father and an educator, I am fighting his 
     nomination because I have a responsibility to care about the 
     world I leave children and not merely the wealth my cronies 
     accumulate.
       Pruitt has actively worked to dismantle protections for 
     clean air and clean water that people and birds need to 
     thrive. The EPA must adhere to science and support common-
     sense solutions for ensuring a healthy environment and stable 
     climate for people and wildlife.
       Please oppose confirming Scott Pruitt and demand a nominee 
     instead who will represent the vast majority of Americans--
     regardless of party affiliation--who support strong action 
     and safeguards for our air, water, and climate.

  I couldn't agree more with what he said.
  Wendy from Newton wrote to me about the concerns as well. Here is 
what she had to say:

       Dear Senator, I am appalled and scared by the possibility 
     of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. It will be disgraceful if he 
     is confirmed. To appoint someone who stands against 
     everything that agency is for is cynical, disrespectful and 
     dangerous in this urgent time of climate change. Now more 
     than ever we need a strong EPA that believes in science and 
     will protect us from environmental disaster. I hope you will 
     do everything you possibly can to fight against Pruitt 
     getting confirmed.

  Thank you for writing.
  I also heard from Arlene in Wayland, who is worried about what the 
future of the EPA means for her two grandchildren. Here is what she had 
to say:

       Senator Warren, please assure your constituents that you 
     will not support Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the EPA. 
     Mr. Pruitt is an enemy of the agency and of the future of our 
     environment. He has stood in the way of the agency's purpose 
     to protect our air and water. He is ignorant of the findings 
     of climate science and medical studies on toxicity, has dealt 
     dishonestly with Congress, and is so obviously in the pocket 
     of the fossil fuel industry. Please use your considerable 
     persuasiveness and rigor to convince your colleagues in the 
     Senate to ditch his nomination. The future of my two 
     grandchildren depends on it. Thank you.

  Thank you for your note, Arlene. I am doing my best, and so are the 
rest of the Democrats. We just need some Republicans to help us out 
here.
  Joan from Maynard reached out to me about her experience working with 
children who have suffered from lead poisoning. Here is what Joan 
wrote:

       I have been an Educational Advocate for children with 
     disabilities for 24 years. I've worked with children who 
     suffer from lead poisoning, and they are heartbreaking. Even 
     the smallest exposure has life-long profound consequences. I 
     haven't personally seen anything the level of what has 
     happened in Flint, MI, but I know that it's a tragedy for a 
     generation of children in Flint.
       Pollution of our waters is just one of the risks we face if 
     Scott Pruitt is approved. There are countless more, many 
     evident and others not readily apparent, but ready to unfold. 
     Please, please fight this appointment in every way you can.

  Thank you, Joan, for writing and for the important work you do. 
Believe me, I am fighting in every way I can.
  A man from North Falmouth wrote to me, worried that the progress we 
have made on protecting public health and the future of our planet is 
in danger. Here is what he said:

       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a lifelong ally 
     of corporate polluters. Pruitt's nomination is a clear threat 
     to the nation's public health and the progress made on 
     common-sense pollution standards. I cannot tolerate the 
     appointment of a fossil fuel cheerleader to lead the nation's 
     environmental protection efforts. In 2014, Pruitt literally 
     acted as a messenger between Devon Energy and the EPA in an 
     attempt to stifle public health protections.
       Please continue to defend the Clean Power Plan and methane 
     pollution standards against the influence of the fossil fuel 
     industry. 64% of Americans are concerned about climate 
     change, we deserve a leader who will take action to protect 
     air quality.

  Thanks for writing. I really appreciate it.
  Since President Trump nominated Mr. Pruitt, I have received hundreds 
of letters like these from people in Massachusetts who are worried 
about what he will mean for the environment and for the future of our 
planet, but I have also heard from the experts, people who understand 
the ins and outs of the EPA and its mission. Hundreds of former EPA 
employees who have serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on the 
environment sent a letter to me and my colleagues here in the Senate. 
Here is what they wrote:

       We write as former employees of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns about Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications to serve as 
     the next EPA Administrator in light of his record in 
     Oklahoma. Our perspective is not partisan. Having served 
     under both Republican and Democratic presidents, we recognize 
     each new Administration's right to pursue different policies 
     within the parameters of existing law and to ask Congress to 
     change the laws that protect public health and the 
     environment as it sees fit.
       However, every EPA Administrator has a fundamental 
     obligation to act in the public's interest based on current 
     law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt's record 
     raises serious concerns about whose interests he has served 
     to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of 
     U.S. environmental law.
       Our nation has made tremendous progress in ensuring that 
     every American has clean air to breathe, clean water to drink 
     and uncontaminated land on which to live, work and play. 
     Anyone who visits Beijing is reminded of what some cities in 
     the U.S. once looked like before we went to work as a people 
     to combat pollution. Much of the EPA's work involves 
     preserving those gains, which should not be taken for 
     granted. There are also emerging new threats as well as 
     serious gaps in our environmental safety net, as the 
     drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan, painfully 
     demonstrates.
       Our environmental laws are based on a partnership that 
     requires EPA to set national standards and give states 
     latitude when implementing them so long as certain minimum 
     criteria are satisfied. This approach recognizes that 
     Americans have an equal right to clean air and water, no 
     matter where they live, and allows states to compete for 
     business without having to sacrifice public health or 
     environmental quality.
       Our environmental laws include provisions directing EPA to 
     allow for a ``margin of safety'' when assessing risks, which 
     is intended to limit exposure to pollutants when it is 
     reasonable to expect they may harm the public health, even 
     when all the scientific evidence is not yet in. For example, 
     EPA's first Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, chose to limit 
     the amount of lead in gasoline before all doubt about its 
     harmfulness to public health was erased. His actions spared 
     much of the harm that some countries still face as a result 
     of the devastating effects of lead on human health. 
     Similarly, early action to reduce exposure to fine particle 
     pollution helped avoid thousands of premature deaths from 
     heart and lung disease. The magnitude and severity of those 
     risks did not become apparent until much later.
       Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest 
     that he does not share the vision or agree with the 
     underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr. 
     Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a 
     critically important function for EPA. While serving as 
     Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued 
     more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn 
     EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants, 
     reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks, 
     clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse emissions.
       In contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's many press releases refer 
     to any action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or 
     to actually reduce pollution. This track record likely 
     reflects his disturbing decision to close the environmental 
     enforcement unit in his office while establishing a new 
     litigation team to challenge EPA and other federal agencies. 
     He has claimed credit for an agreement to protect the 
     Illinois River that did little more than confirm phosphorus 
     limits established much earlier, while delaying their 
     enforcement another three years.
       In a similar vein, Mr. Pruitt has gone to disturbing 
     lengths to advance the views and interests of business. For 
     example, he signed and sent a letter as Oklahoma Attorney 
     General criticizing EPA estimates of emissions from oil and 
     gas wells, without disclosing that it had been drafted in its 
     entirety by Devon Energy. He filed suit on behalf of Oklahoma 
     to block a California law requiring humane treatment of 
     poultry. The federal court dismissed the case after finding 
     that the lawsuit was brought not to benefit the citizens of 
     Oklahoma but a handful of large egg producers perfectly 
     capable of representing their own interests. To mount his 
     challenge to EPA's rules to reduce carbon pollution from 
     power plants, he took the unusual step of accepting free help 
     from a private law firm. In contrast, there is little or

[[Page S1274]]

     no evidence of Mr. Pruitt taking initiative to protect and 
     advance public health and environmental protection in his 
     state.
       Mr. Pruitt's office has apparently acknowledged 3,000 
     emails and other documents reflecting communications with 
     certain oil and gas companies, but has yet to make any of 
     these available in response to a Freedom of Information Act 
     request filed more than two years ago.
       Contrary to the cooperative federalism that he promotes, 
     Mr. Pruitt has suggested that EPA should refrain from trying 
     to control pollution that crosses state lines. For example, 
     he intervened to support a Farm Bureau lawsuit that would 
     have overturned a cooperative agreement between five states 
     and EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay (the court rejected 
     the challenge). When asked how a state can protect its 
     citizens from pollution that originates outside its borders, 
     Mr. Pruitt said in his Senate testimony that states should 
     resolve these disputes on their own, with EPA providing 
     ``informational'' support once an agreement is reached. But 
     the 1972 Clean Water Act directs EPA to review state water 
     quality plans, require any improvements needed to make waters 
     ``fishable and swimmable,'' and to review and approve plans 
     to limit pollutant loads to protect water quality. EPA's 
     power to set standards and limit pollution that crosses state 
     lines is exactly what ensures every American clean air and 
     water, and gives states the incentive to negotiate and 
     resolve transboundary disputes.
       We are most concerned about Mr. Pruitt's reluctance to 
     accept and to act on the strong scientific consensus on 
     climate change and act accordingly. Our country's own 
     National Research Council, the principal operating arm of the 
     National Academies of Science and Engineering, concluded in a 
     2010 report requested by Congress that human activity is 
     altering the climate to an extent that poses grave risks to 
     Americans' health and welfare. More recent scientific data 
     and analyses have only confirmed the Council's conclusion 
     and added to the urgency of addressing the problem.
       Despite this and other authoritative warnings about the 
     dangers of climate change, Mr. Pruitt persists in pointing to 
     uncertainty about the precise extent of humanity's 
     contribution to the problem as a basis for resisting taking 
     any regulatory action to help solve it. At his Senate 
     confirmation hearing, he stated that ``science tells us that 
     the climate is changing, and that human activity in some 
     manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with 
     precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to 
     do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, 
     and well it should be.'' This is a familiar dodge--
     emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of 
     humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific 
     consensus that human activities are largely responsible for 
     dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently 
     needed before it is too late.
       Mr. Pruitt's indulgence in this dodge raises the 
     fundamental question of whether he agrees with the 
     precautionary principle reflected in our nation's 
     environmental statutes. Faithful execution of our 
     environmental laws requires effectively combating climate 
     change to minimize its potentially catastrophic impacts 
     before it is too late.
       The American people have been served by EPA Administrators, 
     Republicans and Democrats, who have embraced their 
     responsibility to protect public health and the environment. 
     Different administrators have come to different conclusions 
     about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and 
     many of their decisions have been challenged in court, 
     sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far 
     enough. But in the large majority of cases it was evident to 
     us that they put the public's welfare ahead of private 
     interests. Scott Pruitt has not demonstrated this same 
     commitment.
       Thank you for considering our views.

  Thank you to all who signed that letter and for the incredibly 
important work that you have done to protect our environment. I am with 
you all the way.
  Next, I wish to read an article published by The Atlantic that uses 
Scott Pruitt's actions to critique his appointment to head the EPA. 
Actions speak volumes louder than words, and his tell a pretty 
compelling story of exactly how he will lead the Agency. Here is what 
it says:

       While broad strokes of Trump's policies were never in 
     doubt, there was often enough bizarreness to wonder what he 
     would do with the powers of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       On Wednesday, those questions were all but settled. Trump 
     has chosen E. Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, 
     to lead the EPA. . . .
       In a certain light, Pruitt is an inspired choice to lead 
     the EPA, as he has made fighting the agency a hallmark of his 
     career. His own website calls him ``a leading advocate 
     against the EPA's activist agenda.'' The significance could 
     not be more clear: As he promised on the trail, Trump will 
     likely use the powers of the presidency and the legal 
     expertise of Pruitt to block or weaken the Obama 
     administration's attempts to fight climate change.
       And Trump will be able to try for more than that. For what 
     distinguishes Pruitt's career is not just his opposition to 
     using regulations to tackle climate change, but his 
     opposition to using regulation to tackle any environmental 
     problem at all. Since he was elected Oklahoma's attorney 
     general, in 2010, Pruitt has racked up a sizable record--
     impressive in its number of lawsuits if not in its number of 
     victories--of suing the EPA.
       Many of these suits did not target climate-related 
     policies. Instead, they singled out anti-pollution measures, 
     initiated under presidential administrations, that tend to be 
     popular with the public.
       In 2014, for instance, Pruitt sued to block the EPA's 
     Regional Haze Rule. The rule is built on a 15-year old 
     program meant to ensure that air around national parks is 
     especially clear. Pruitt lost his case.
       Last year, he sued to block a rule restricting how much 
     mercury could be emitted into the air by coal plants. He lost 
     that, too.
       And early in his tenure, he sued to keep the EPA from 
     settling lawsuits brought by environmental groups like the 
     Sierra Club. That one was dismissed.
       He has brought other suits against EPA anti-pollution 
     programs--like one against new rules meant to reduce the 
     amount of ozone in the air--that haven't been heard in court 
     yet. While ozone is beneficial to humans high in the 
     atmosphere, it can be intensely damaging when it accumulates 
     at ground level, worsening asthma and inducing premature 
     deaths. The American Lung Association calls it ``one of the 
     most dangerous'' pollutants in the United States.
       All this is not to say that Pruitt has omitted climate 
     regulations from his litigation. His most common target has 
     been the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's set of 
     Clean Air Act rules meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     from power plants. The Clean Power Plan is Obama's main 
     mechanism for pushing the United States to meet its pledge 
     under the Paris Agreement.
       Pruitt began suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan 
     more than two years ago. Now, Oklahoma is one of the 28 
     states challenging the agency in court, and it helped succeed 
     in getting the Supreme Court to block the rules in February.
       But Pruitt's understanding of the bill seems not entirely 
     legally minded in two significant ways. First, Pruitt's 
     knowledge of global warming appears to be lacking, at best. 
     Earlier this year, for instance, he wrote in the National 
     Review that ``scientists continue to disagree about the 
     degree and the extent of global warming and its connection to 
     the actions of mankind.''
       While this sounds reasonable, it is not true. The 
     overwhelming consensus among scientists who study the Earth 
     is that humans are largely to blame for the planet's warming. 
     Climate scientists understood this to be the case since at 
     least the early 1990s, and since then, scholarly consensus on 
     the issue has only strengthened. The majority of scientists 
     also believe that global warming will be quite harmful; the 
     scientific debate about its ``degree and extent'' is only 
     about how bad it will be and how soon its consequences will 
     kick in.
       Second, Pruitt has worked extremely closely with oil and 
     gas companies in opposing the plan. In one case, a New York 
     Times investigation revealed that Pruitt sent an official 
     letter to the EPA, bearing his signature and letterhead, that 
     had been almost completely written by lawyers at Devon 
     Energy, a major oil and gas company. It was delivered to 
     Pruitt's office by Devon's chief lobbyist.
       Energy firms and lobbyists, including Devon, have donated 
     generously to the Republican Attorneys General Association, 
     which Pruitt has led. In interviews after the Times report, 
     Pruitt described the collaboration as a kind of constituent 
     service, saying that Devon is based in Oklahoma City. He 
     agreed with the letter's legal reasoning, he said, so he 
     signed it.
       ``I don't think there is anything secretive in what we've 
     done,'' Pruitt told The Oklahoman. ``We've been very open 
     about the efforts of my office in responding to federal 
     overreach.''
       Now Pruitt could be the one doing the federal reaching. 
     Environmental groups immediately condemned Trump's selection 
     of him. ``The EPA plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing 
     long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of 
     Americans, based on the best available science,'' said Ken 
     Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a 
     statement. ``Pruitt has a clear record of hostility to the 
     EPA's mission, and he is a completely inappropriate choice to 
     lead it.''
       Once, it had seemed like perhaps Trump--who speaks often of 
     his adoration for clean air and clean water--would bypass 
     those old fights and only target Obama's new climate rules. 
     But with Pruitt leading his EPA, it seems that Trump's 
     administration will act like its GOP predecessors. Whether it 
     is successful depends on the Senate, on the courts, and on 
     how well environmental advocates make their case to the 
     public.

  Finally, I wish to share a few excerpts from an in-depth New York 
Times article that uncovered Scott Pruitt's extensive ties to energy 
companies. The article clearly explains the massive conflicts of 
interest that Mr. Pruitt would face as Administrator of the EPA. Here 
is what it says:

       The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt 
     accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating 
     the amount of air pollution

[[Page S1275]]

     caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas wells in 
     his state.
       But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page 
     letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of 
     Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered 
     to him by Devon's chief of lobbying.
       ``Outstanding!'' William F. Whitsitt, who at the time 
     directed the government relations at the company, said in a 
     note to Mr. Pruitt's office. The attorney general's staff had 
     taken Devon's draft, copied it onto state government 
     stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to 
     Washington with the attorney general's signature. ``The 
     timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday 
     with both the E.P.A. and the White House.''
       Mr. Whitsitt then added, ``Please pass along Devon's thanks 
     to Attorney General Pruitt.''
       The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an 
     open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, 
     secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican 
     attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top 
     energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory 
     agenda, an investigation by the New York Times has found.
       Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys 
     general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to 
     fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands 
     of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews.
       For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and 
     company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him 
     raise his profile as president for two years of the 
     Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to 
     help start what he and his allies called the Rule of Law 
     Campaign, which was intended to push back against Washington.
       ``We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,'' 
     Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative 
     state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after 
     being welcomed with a standing ovation. ``The trajectory of 
     our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is 
     going on.''
       Mr. Pruitt has responded aggressively and with a lot of 
     helping hands. Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for 
     him to send to the EPA, the Interior Department, the 
     Office of Management and Budget, and even President Obama, 
     the Times found.
       Industries that he regulates have joined him as plaintiffs 
     in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of a 
     state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to 
     force compliance with state law.
       Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft 
     legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push 
     it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general 
     clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda, 
     the documents show. And it is an emerging practice that 
     several attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the 
     office.

  The message is clear across Massachusetts and across the Nation: Big 
Oil's go-to attorney general is Scott Pruitt, and he has no business 
running the EPA. He has proven over and over again that he will put 
short-term industry profits ahead of the health of our children. This 
nominee has no interest in protecting every American's right to breathe 
clean air and drink clean water. We cannot put someone so opposed to 
the goals of the EPA in charge of that very Agency.
  For these reasons, I will be voting no on Scott Pruitt. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________