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

[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1315-S1361]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

EXECUTIVE CALENDAR--Continued

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, in late October, people who lived in a
place called Donora shrugged off the thick, yellow smog that had
covered their small town. It was 1948. It wasn't unusual to see a smog
blanket the town, thanks to the zinc plant and the steel mill that
smoked endlessly into the Pennsylvania sky. It wasn't unusual to see
people coughing as they went about their day. As one reporter put it,
``People are always coughing in Donora.''
What was unusual is that the smog did not clear as the day went on.
It lingered, hanging around the town, wreaking havoc for the next 5
days. At first, life seemed to go on. The Halloween parade went on as
planned, even though no one could really see the people marching. The
high school football game went on as planned, although the quarterbacks
avoided passing plays since the wide receivers couldn't see the ball.
But then someone died. People couldn't breathe. As the local hospital
started to fill, the town hotel set up beds for overflow patients. By
the fourth day, the hotel had to set up another emergency section--this
time, a temporary morgue. The town's three funeral homes were
overwhelmed. On the fifth day, the stacks of a zinc plant stopped their
endless streams of smoke, and the smog that would become known as the
Donora death fog finally lifted but not before nearly 7,000 people fell
ill and 20 died.
This is one of the many stories that show us what life was like in
the United States of America before the EPA was created. In the early
1960s, millions of freshwater fish and rivers around the country were
poisoned by insecticides--hurting consumer trust and the countless
fishermen and their families who relied on the fish to make a living.
Pollution was so bad that debris floating in the Cuyahoga River
actually caught on fire, causing thousands of dollars in property
damage. The water in Lake Superior, one of the most beautiful lakes in
the United States, became so toxic from companies dumping asbestos-
laden waste that local communities had to start filtering their water.
Think about that. People could drink the water from local reservoirs,
unfiltered, until pollution came along. This was the path our country
was on.
Pollution was destroying some of the most beautiful places in this
country--on the planet, in fact--putting the health of the public and
the health of our economy at grave risk.
There was another event in the early 1960s that helped our country to
see clearly that the path we were on would only lead to destruction.
Rachel Carson, scientist, public servant, and author, published a book
called ``Silent Spring.'' This book laid out in simple, beautiful prose
the threats that pesticides and pollution posed to our environment or
what Carson called a ``Fable for Tomorrow.'' She wrote: ``The most
alarming of all man's assaults upon the environment is the
contamination of air, earth, rivers and sea, with dangerous and even
lethal materials.''
Carson's book made clear that we were contaminating the environment
and that this could not go on. Her book sounded a call for change, as
millions of Americans began demanding that the government take action,
but there was also a backlash. Here is what one industry spokesman said
as public opinion began to coalesce around addressing pollution:

The major claims of Miss Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring
are gross distortions of the actual facts, completely
unsupported by scientific experimental evidence and general,
practical experience in the field. Her suggestion that
pesticides are in fact biocides destroying all life is
obviously absurd in the light of the fact that without
selective biologicals, these compounds would be completely
useless.

This is how the controversy went on for the next few years. The
public, the science, and the reality all pointed toward the truth, but
a few loud voices persisted. They did not want the movement to go
forward. This continued even after Rachel Carson passed away,
tragically and prematurely, of cancer in the year 1964.
Here is what the New York Times published in her obituary:

The most recent flare-up in the continuing pesticide
controversy occurred early this month when the Public Health
Service announced that the periodic huge-scale deaths of fish
on the lower Mississippi River had been traced over the last
4 years to toxic ingredients and three kinds of pesticides.
Some persons believe that the pesticides drained into the
river from neighboring farm lands.
A hearing by the Agriculture Department of the Public
Health Service's charges ended a week ago with a spokesman
for one of the pesticide manufacturers saying that any
judgment should be delayed until more information was
obtained.

The line of argument captured in the New York Times is familiar to
anyone who has watched our Nation struggle to come to a shared set of
facts around a number of difficult issues, but even in the face of so
much controversy, the country did the right thing. In addressing the
threats to our environment, the U.S. Government--with substantial and
commendable support from Republicans--began to lay the foundation for a
new America, one that would preserve and protect our country and its
resources for the next generation.
I would like to highlight three of the critical cornerstones in the
foundation: the EPA, the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
Let's start with the EPA itself. It was established in 1970 by
President Nixon. He united several offices and bureaus already in the
Federal Government into a single agency--one that

[[Page S1316]]

would oversee all of the laws, protections, research, and policies
about the Nation's environment. The mission of the EPA was clear from
the start, to protect human health and the environment. Almost
immediately, something really exciting happened. There was a feeling of
hope and anticipation for what this Agency could do for the country.
Within the first few months, tens of thousands of resumes came flooding
in from across the country as people clamored to work for the EPA.
Here is how one man who worked for the Agency described it:

There was a palpable sense of excitement that we were about
to do something big. We had to do things big because the
newspapers and news magazines were filled with stories about
Lake Erie dying. I think it was a year or two before that the
Cuyahoga had indeed caught on fire. I believe the Houston
Ship Channel had the same issue. We knew we were there to
really deal with substantial problems, and we were going to
meet with immediate pushback.

For the next 40 years, the EPA would build a legacy of preserving and
protecting the country's air, water, and natural resources, working to
make our country a better place to live.
I just want to say that whatever the final disposition of this
nomination ends up being--and I know we will push as hard as we
possibly can for the delay of this decision, until we are able to see
the contents of Mr. Pruitt's emails as directed by the court this
afternoon--but whatever the decision is of the Senate under advice and
consent, it is really important that this be said: EPA employees still
have an obligation under Federal law to do their job, to protect air
and water, to administer the Clean Air and Clean Water Act, to enforce
the Endangered Species Act. We are confirming a head of an Agency, but
this new head of an Agency is not the Emperor of the Agency.
This new head of an Agency has obligations under the statute to
enforce the laws on the books, and he has a current role as the lead of
the Republican Attorneys General Association and as a plaintiff in
multiple lawsuits against the EPA, and that is a reason many of us
object to his confirmation. If he is confirmed, every EPA employee has
rights. They have whistleblower rights, they have protections, and they
have obligations under the statute so that if this EPA tries to do
anything unlawful, anything that contravenes the Clean Air Act, the
Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, then all of the EPA
employees are dutybound under the law to follow the law.
No one in the Federal Government should be forced to do anything
unlawful, and we support the EPA employees, in particular, who we know
work so hard and are so dedicated to such an important cause. We know
they are under intense scrutiny and pressure, and I think it is worth
saying that we support them but also that the law supports them.
One of the first actions of the Agency was to ban DDT, a pesticide
used in World War II. At first, DDT seemed like a dream chemical. It
was used to protect soldiers from pests and then to protect crops like
cotton, but soon it became clear--thanks to Rachel Carson and others--
that this chemical was creating far more harm than good. Public health
was really in danger. The bald eagle and other wildlife were being
poisoned, and the pests that were supposed to be put off from bothering
the crops were adapting, becoming more resistant, even as the chemicals
became more potent and ultimately more dangerous.
Thanks to the EPA, the use of DDT came to an end. The health of
children, families, and wildlife immediately improved. The bald eagle
slowly recovered, to the point where it is no longer a threatened or an
endangered species.
The Agency also found a solution to acid rain, which was a major
problem that killed fish, hurt American farmers, and caused damage to
forests and infrastructure alike. After studies showed how high
concentrations of lead were hurting our kids, the EPA took action to
remove it from gasoline and from the air. Because of that action, lead
levels in both kids and adults have dropped by more than 80 percent
since the late 1970s. We have a lot more work to do on lead, but that
is one of the many EPA success stories.
The EPA then took on secondhand smoke, banning smoking in indoor
public places. It pushed the auto industry to design technology that
would reduce the amount of pollution created by cars, a step that would
reduce the amount of pollution per mile emitted by cars by up to 90
percent. It provides technical assistance to State and local
governments that otherwise don't have the resources or the know-how to
tackle problems on their own.
The Agency has also empowered the public through right-to-know laws
that give people access to information about chemicals, toxic
substances, and pollution in their own communities. After studies show
how low-income and minority communities face greater environmental
risks, the EPA formed an Office of Environmental Justice, dedicated to
making these communities as safe as any other in the country. As is so
often the case, this Federal Agency set the bar for the rest of the
world on how governments can protect and preserve the environment.
One leader of the EPA who served under President George H.W. Bush
recalled that the Agency worked with countries as varied as Morocco and
Mexico to battle fires or spills. After the EPA sent people to help
with a Russian spill that was impacting Estonia, the Prime Minister
wrote the EPA a letter, saying their visit was the most important visit
of any American's since Charles Lindbergh had flown from Russia to
Estonia in 1933.
So the EPA has had incredibly important impacts, from boosting
diplomacy around the world to protecting the lungs of little ones right
here at home.
The second cornerstone of our efforts to protect the environment is
the Clean Air Act. Before the EPA opened its doors, States set their
own standards for clean air, and most States had weak standards because
they were in a race to the bottom to attract companies that didn't want
to have to deal with the damage they caused. Imagine you are in a State
and have three or four adjacent States and someone wants to cite a
factory. Well, it is very difficult to have a strong environmental
standard because that factory is no doubt going to find the place where
they are allowed to pollute the most, which is why you have Federal
standards. Not surprisingly, these low standards were fueling air
pollution.

Every day, the average American takes between 17,000 and 23,000
breaths. If the air we are breathing is filled with toxic chemicals, we
are at risk for cancer, birth defects, and damage to our lungs, our
brain, and our nerves. That risk is even higher for people with asthma
and for senior citizens.
Remember, humans are not the only ones that rely on clean air. Trees,
crops, wildlife, lakes, fish are all at risk of damage when we have
dirty air. So eventually the American public demanded that something be
done to clean up our air.
In 1970, Congress on a bipartisan basis, passed the Clean Air Act.
This law, along with later amendments, makes up the complete Federal
response to air pollution. It is a beautifully written law. It gives
the EPA the authority to limit air pollutants and emissions from
industry plants. It empowers the Agency to research and fund different
approaches to keeping the air clean. It creates partnerships between
Federal, State, and local governments to reduce air pollution. Who
could argue with that?
As soon as it was passed, people knew that this law was a game
changer. President Nixon said: ``I think that 1970 will be known as the
year of the beginning, in which we really began to move on the problems
of clean air and clean water and open spaces for the future generations
of America.''
That is exactly what happened. The impact was actually felt very
quickly, starting with the auto industry. The Clean Air Act called on
the auto industry to drastically reduce the amount of nitrogen oxide,
carbon monoxide, and other harmful chemicals that came out of the
tailpipes across the country within 5 years.
Consider that today there are more than three times the amount of
cars on the road than they were in the 1970s. Now imagine that the
chemicals coming out of each of those car's tailpipes were 90 percent
more harmful. That is where we would be without the Clean Air Act.
It was not so long ago that communities would cancel high school for
kids because the air pollution was so bad, not in Beijing but in
California. That is no longer the case, not for numerous

[[Page S1317]]

reasons, not for a dozen or so causes but because of the Clean Air Act.
This law has literally saved millions of lives. It has improved the
health of millions of others.
Because the EPA has been there to enforce it, air pollution has
fallen by 70 percent since 1970. Smog levels in Los Angeles have fallen
from their peak by two-thirds. Nationwide, lead in our cars is down 98
percent, carbon monoxide is down 85 percent, sulphur dioxide is down 80
percent, acid rain is down 50 percent, and all at a fraction of
anticipated costs.
Let me make two points here. First of all, it is actually rare that a
law works this well. I mean, it is hard to make a good law. Everybody
talks about it as a sausage-making process; you don't want to see what
goes into it. But not all laws work over time.
This law actually worked. This law actually cleaned up our air. That
is a really important thing to remember. If you undermine this law, if
you undermine the agency that enforces it, the air does not clean up
itself. This is not an automatic thing. The air is clean because the
government protects the air.
I understand that, including the Presiding Officer and many Members
of the Republican Party, we have tough debates about how big the
government should be, what its responsibility should be. But if you go
from Bernie Sanders, a democratic socialist, to Rand Paul, the sort of
Republican libertarian--and I am not sure if you just sat down and had
a cup of coffee with either of them or everybody in between on the
political spectrum, in terms of their view of what the Federal
Government ought to do, gosh, I can't imagine that anybody--if you kind
of get them in a private moment--does not think that it is a Federal
role to keep the air clean.
There are moments where I see a program within a Federal agency and I
might love it, right, because of my political persuasion. But I can
understand how a Ben Sasse or a Rand Paul or a Marco Rubio might object
to it because they might say: Well, that sounds like a good idea, but
my goodness, if that is so important, why don't we let communities
decide whether or not to do that?
This is not one of those issues. Go and talk to your constituents
about whether they want clean air. I don't know that you are going to
find too many Republicans out there--I mean voters, not elected
officials--voters, who think clean air is, take it or leave it, not a
Federal role.
The truth is, that first of all, clean air is important enough to
make a Federal law about in the first place. But there is also a
technical reason, not a very complicated technical reason, but a
technical reason that you need a Federal law that is about clean air as
opposed to a State-by-State patchwork, and that is because the air
travels. You cannot pollute in one State and expect that it will not
impact the other State.
So one State having tough clean air standards doesn't really function
in terms of the ecology because pollution knows no boundaries. The same
study that I referred to found that air pollution has improved in the
United States, thanks to environmental protection. But our work is not
done. Nearly 90,000 people every year in the United States are at risk
of a premature death because of air pollution. That number will rise if
we chip away at this basic foundation.
The third and final cornerstone of that foundation is the Clean Water
Act. It is really important to remember how bad things were before the
Clean Water Act. I mean, we are not where we need to be in terms of
protecting our water resources. But it is kind of unfathomable how bad
it was before this law was passed.
Water in communities across the country was dirty. You could not swim
or fish in two-thirds of the lakes, rivers, and coastal waters in the
country. You couldn't swim or fish in two-thirds of the lakes, rivers,
and coastal waters in the country. That is a data point that you would
expect in a country that is still industrializing, that just doesn't
have the pollution controls.
When you go to certain parts of the planet and you see essentially a
very dirty environment, you would assume two-thirds, maybe more, of
those lakes and streams and waterways are too polluted to fish or swim.
But this is the United States. It was allowable to dump untreated
sewage into open water. You could dump untreated sewage into open water
before the Clean Water Act.
But that changed in 1972, when what is now known as the Clean Water
Act became law and cleared the way for the Federal Government to
restore and protect the health of our water.
According to a study by the Aspen Institute, the Clean Water Act
stopped billions of pounds of pollution from fouling the water and
dramatically increased the number of waterways that are safe for
swimming and fishing. Twenty years ago, you would have had to have a
death wish to go swimming in Boston Harbor. Today, you don't have to
think twice. That is because of the Clean Water Act.
But this is not just about enjoying the beauty of the water that it
provides to so many communities, although not is not a small thing.
Look, a lot of people--left, right, and center--people who are not
political, people on the progressive side, people on the conservative
side, people like lakes. People like the beach. People like the ocean.
It is not unreasonable, whoever you voted for, to think that there
are a few things that government should do: They should probably have
some kind of transportation infrastructure. There should probably be a
law enforcement function. Make sure that the water is clean, the air is
clean, and we have some national defense. Right? That is some basic
stuff. Even if you are a libertarian, if you are not nuts, you think
that the government should do a couple of very basic things, and among
them is to keep the water clean.
I wanted to share some interactions I have had with the craft beer
industry. They wrote a letter this week about how important clean water
is to them. Here is a section of it:

Beer is about 90 percent water, making local water supply
quality and its characteristics such as pH and mineral
content, critical to beer brewing and the flavor of many
classic brews.
Changes to our water supply--whether we draw directly from
a water source or from a municipal supply--threaten our
ability to consistently produce our great-tasting beer, and
thus, our bottom line.
Protecting clean water is central to our business and our
long-term success. Not only does great-tasting beer we brew
depend on it, but so do the communities in which we operate.

Some of the largest and best craft breweries in the country signed
onto this letter, from the Allagash Brewing Company in Maine to the New
Belgium Brewing Company in Colorado. They are right to be concerned
because it will not take much for our water to go back to where it was
in the 1970s. So it is in the interest of many industries for our
country to have clean water, but not all of them.
Publicly traded companies will do the minimum. In a lot of ways, the
way these companies are set up, they are actually obligated under the
law to do the minimum. They have to maximize shareholder profit. They
have boards of directors, they have earnings reports, they have
quarterly obligations. Whether you like it or not, that is the way our
system works. So, if you have a fiduciary obligation to maximize
profits, then you may give short shrift to environmental concerns.
Compliance costs money. So most companies will comply only if they
have to. If they are good companies, they feel that their obligation is
to sit down with their lawyers and have the lawyers explain to them
what they must do to comply.
But it is a rare company that says: Hey, I want to do much more than
that. I mean Patagonia is great. There are other companies that do good
work in the environmental space. But let's be very clear: There are a
handful of companies that are so motivated, either as a brand strategy
or a mission-driven approach, that they are going to exceed their
obligations under the law. Most companies are going to do what is
required under the law and not much more.
We can count on someone saying on a board of directors in some corner
office or someplace on Wall Street: Hey, we can save 3 percent here if
we don't clean the water. That is why we need a Clean Water Act. That
is why we need the EPA. It is not a matter of left or right; this is a
matter of right or wrong. This is a matter of clean or dirty.

[[Page S1318]]

This is especially important because our work is not done. We still
have a ways to go. We still can't swim or fish in about one-third of
our waterways. So these three cornerstones--this foundation of more
than 40 years of progress--have prepared us to tackle what is the
challenge of our lifetime, climate change. There was a time when this
was primarily the concern of the conservation minded among us, people
like me: hikers, swimmers, surfers green groups, bird and butterfly
people. Right? I understand that.
There was a time where this was mostly an ecological concern. You had
science people, you had hiking types who said: Hey, this thing is
happening. I read Al Gore's book. This is a big deal. They were 10
years ahead of the curve. But climate change is no longer just an
ecological issue; it is an economic issue. It is a quality of life
issue. It is an American way of life issue. It is causing real harm to
people and costing us billions of dollars now--not in the future, but
now.
In recent years, the United States has experienced a record number of
devastating storms, extreme temperatures, severe floods and lasting
droughts. It is not a coincidence. As the climate changes, normal
weather patterns are altered, and this affects our environment, our
health, and our economy by influencing everything from the price of
produce at the grocery store to our home insurance rates.
So we know that climate change is real. The science makes that clear.
In fact, our own personal experience makes that real. A lot of people
fish or hunt or hike or surf or snorkel or go to the lake or just go
outside and experience something that seems to be changing.
There is a difference between weather and climate. The weather is
tomorrow morning's temperature and whether it is raining or not and
whether it is windy or not. The climate is the conditions that create
the weather. It is not arguable anymore by anybody credible that the
climate has changed and, therefore, the weather is getting absolutely
more volatile.
Now we can, unfortunately, rely on our own experience and our own
eyes to confirm that the climate and the weather are getting weirder--
in some cases, more dangerous and certainly more unpredictable. Make no
mistake, this is caused by humans, and that means we can do something
about it.
Climate change deniers need to know that they are on the wrong side
of history. They can't just cite the cost of transitioning to a clean
energy economy--a cost that continues to decline, I should point out--
while ignoring the cost of doing nothing, because the cost of doing
nothing on climate change is absolutely astronomical, whether in storm
aid, infrastructure mitigation, private property loss, or disruption in
financial and insurance markets. It is much less expensive to move
toward a clean energy economy than to allow severe weather to drain our
economy as a whole.
As a Senator from the State of Hawaii who has led the way in building
a clean energy infrastructure--producing clean, renewable energy and
cutting our dependence on fossil fuels--I know that we can achieve
meaningful change across our Nation, but we need the EPA and an
Administrator to achieve this.
By law, the EPA has the authority to take steps to cut any pollution
that threatens human health and welfare, including carbon pollution.
Even the Supreme Court agreed that if EPA found carbon pollution to be
a danger, the Agency was obligated to act to reduce the threat. So EPA
has begun undertaking efforts to rein in those emissions.
Every protection that the EPA creates is the result of years of
scientific inquiry, stakeholder involvement, public comments, and
technological feasibility studies.
For all the talk of Federal overreach, EPA gives an enormous amount
of authority to the States. For instance, in the Clean Power Plan, EPA
sets emissions targets--that is true--but it was up to each State to
develop a plan that is best suited to its unique circumstances.
The State of Hawaii has a really unique situation because we have
lots of clean energy opportunities. But in terms of baseload power, we
get all of our fuel from Asia, and it is LSFO. It is low sulfur fuel
oil. So what we do is we bring in oil on tankers, which is costing
three and a half times the national average for electricity, and we
light it on fire, and that creates electrons. That is not smart. So we
are in a transition.
But there are other States that have geothermal resources or biofuel
resources. So the EPA said: Hey, carbon is a pollutant. You have to
reduce carbon pollution because, under the law, under the Clean Air
Act, any airborne pollutant must be regulated, right? You have to
reduce the airborne pollutants.
The EPA said: You have to do this over time, but we understand you
are going to have your own energy mix and your own challenges. All you
have to do is submit a plan that is kind of like thought through. So
West Virginia's plan is different from California's plan and is
different from Hawaii's plan. They empowered the States to endeavor to
come up with their own energy mix.
Here is the good news about EPA's rules. This news is on the Clean
Air Act. It is on the Clean Power Plan. This is always the case. It
always comes in below the estimated cost because what happens is, if
you tell industry to innovate, even if they don't want to, frankly,
even if they complain about it, even if they tell you that it is going
to crash the American economy, which they often say, they end up
driving innovation in the private sector.
In the case of electricity generation and transportation, the Clean
Power Plan and the CAFE standards, the fuel efficiency standards for
cars, accelerated the technological transition that was already
underway.
Here are a couple of examples. When the auto bailout came in,
President Obama negotiated very hard for an increase in fuel efficiency
standards. You can imagine that the American auto industry was
basically on the ropes. It was about to die without a major bailout. So
they got the bailout, but there were also some strings attached, which
were that they bring up fuel efficiency standards. They freaked out.
And you know what happened? They met the standards. And you know what
happened after that? The American auto industry has never been stronger
because people like fuel-efficient cars, right?
What has happened with the Clean Power Plan and with the Paris
climate accord and the investment tax credit and the production tax
credit is that the cost of solar and wind energy is declining. But when
utilities began thinking about long-term investments in a carbon-
constrained world, the increased demand for clean energy drove down
these costs even further, which is good for both consumers and the
environment. In fact, more solar capacity was added in 2016 than any
other energy source, by far. Solar and wind combined to make up almost
two-thirds of the new capacity last year.
I want people to understand that the clean energy revolution is
underway. The only question is whether we are going to have to take a
4-year break from this clean energy revolution and give the keys to the
car to China and other countries, which would be pleased to let the
United States abdicate its role as the leader of the clean energy
revolution. We are going to lose all of those solar jobs, we are going
to lose the innovation opportunities, and we are going to lose all of
those wind energy opportunities.

The question is not whether we are going to make a transition to
clean energy. The question is how quickly and whether the United States
will drive it or not.
Consumers loved the first generation of hybrid vehicles so much that
there were waiting lists to buy them. CAFE standards, along with
similar fuel economy standards around the world, drove the automotive
industry to innovate even further. Now we have unprecedented numbers of
hybrid and hybrid electric vehicles on the road, and we stand at the
precipice of a new age of electric vehicles.
So we find ourselves at a crossroads. If we continue down the path
President Obama set us on, I have no doubt that American ingenuity and
innovation will allow us to continue to lead the world in the clean
energy economy, but if we turn back the clock and hand our future back
over to the dirty fuels of the past, we will cede economic leadership
to China, India, Germany, and the

[[Page S1319]]

rest of the world. Those countries are moving toward clean energy so
quickly that we may never catch up; we may never be able to take full
advantage of the economic opportunities that clean energy represents.
It is sad, but it is true, that this is the path that our country will
go on if Scott Pruitt is confirmed to lead the EPA.
I know for the public, after so many troubling nominees, that it is
hard to wake up outraged for yet another nominee. But the reason to
freak out about this one is very simple--clean air and clean water. Ask
anyone who lived in L.A. or in Boston since the 1970s, and they can
tell you that our country has clean air and clean water because of the
laws that were put in place and the Agency that has done its job to
implement them.
All of this will be in jeopardy with Scott Pruitt at the helm. He
made his political bones trying to shred the EPA's ability to enforce
the laws that protect clean air and clean water. Now this
administration wants to give Mr. Pruitt the ultimate opportunity to
lead the Agency that he has worked so hard to undermine. And he hasn't
hidden the fact that he is utterly opposed to the EPA.
Let me highlight four statements that he has made that illustrate
this point. He said: ``The EPA was never intended to be our Nation's
frontline environmental regulator.''
The reality is that the opposite is true. The EPA was created for
exactly that reason. Before the EPA existed, there were a number of
offices and bureaus across the Federal Government that worked on
protecting the environment, but the government saw--Congress saw--that
it wasn't enough. Our Nation's waters were polluted, and the air was
not clean. People were getting sick and even dying because there wasn't
enough being done to protect the environment. So the intention behind
the EPA was absolutely to put a single Agency on the frontlines of
protecting and preserving clean air and clean water.
Not only does Mr. Pruitt disagree with the very mission of the EPA,
but he also doesn't seem at all interested in the work being done by
this Agency. He was asked during the confirmation process to name a
single protection on the books at the EPA. Here is his answer:

I have not conducted a comprehensive review of existing EPA
regulations. As attorney general, I have brought legal
challenges involving EPA regulations out of concern that EPA
has exceeded its statutory authority based on the record and
the law in that matter.

I mean, just as a parent--forget my job as a Senator--as a parent and
as a citizen, this really concerns me. I don't want to see the EPA led
by someone who is basically given a softball question in the
confirmation hearing: Name something you like about the EPA. But he
declines to go on the record supporting clean air or clean water.
I mean, you would think that he could just say: Well, I like the
Clean Water Act; I like the Clean Air Act. He could even offer caveats,
saying: I think there has been overreach, and I think there needs to be
a recalibration. Say whatever you want, but he couldn't even bring
himself to say he supports the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act.
That was the second comment that he made that was disturbing.
The third one relates to a Federal standard that targets pollution
that decreases visibility. Mr. Pruitt had this to say about these
standards:

[They] threaten the competitive edge Oklahoma has enjoyed
for years with low-cost and reliable electric generation.
This low-cost energy not only benefits Oklahoma
manufacturers, but gives our State a considerable edge in
recruiting new jobs.

What Mr. Pruitt is referring to is actually another reason why the
EPA was created in the first place. When States were in charge of
environmental protections, it was often a race to the bottom. Everyone
would try to lower their standards so that companies would move plants
and factories to their State. And the result is exactly what you would
imagine. Companies were happy to meet the lowest standard possible,
leaving huge messes for the State to clean up, and that is not a good
use of our taxpayer dollars.
It isn't the government's job to allow companies to make a huge mess
and say: Hey, we will clean that up for you. There is no need to clean
it up. We have it.
Let's look at how this has worked out for Oklahoma. I would like to
read an article by journalist, author, and climate expert Eric Pooley,
which was published by Time magazine:

Mercury is a deadly neurotoxin that damages the brains of
the ``developing fetus and young children,'' according to the
American Academy of Pediatrics. It is spewed into the air
from coal-fired power plants and other industrial sources
before settling into lakes and waterways and contaminating
the fish we eat.
But Pruitt's challenges against the EPA's mercury standards
include a tidy piece of scientific denial, claiming ``the
record does not support the EPA's findings that mercury . . .
pose[s] public health hazards.''
After that legal challenge failed, Pruitt sued a second
time to block the mercury rules--even though virtually all
power plants had already complied with them at a fraction of
the expected cost.
Thanks in part to the EPA rules Pruitt opposed, mercury
levels in Atlantic Bluefin tuna are rapidly declining.

This isn't an abstract thing. If there are high mercury levels in
fish and people eat the fish, they actually get the mercury poisoning.
This happens in Honolulu all the time. We like our fish. And people go
to the ER all the time. They don't know what it is, and it turns out
that it is mercury poisoning.

But Oklahomans aren't so lucky. While Pruitt was busy
trying to kill national mercury rules, the number of Oklahoma
lakes listed for mercury contamination was climbing. This
year, the state lists 40 lakes with fish consumption
advisories due to mercury levels--up from 19 listed in 2010.
Eight lakes were added just this year.
Another Attorney General might have been trying to identify
the sources of the pollution. But Pruitt was apparently too
busy suing the EPA.
Pruitt also attacks limits on ground level ozone. The
ground level ozone--better known as smog--despite the fact
that ozone problems are huge and worsening in Oklahoma. The
latest American Lung Association report gave all Oklahoma
counties surveyed an ``F'' for ozone problems and found that
the number of high ozone days had increased in most counties
as compared to 2010 to 2012.

The argument in this article can be boiled down to a single phrase:
With Mr. Pruitt leading the EPA, we can bet that as goes Oklahoma, so
goes the Nation. I can't speak for the people of Oklahoma, but I can
say that when it comes to these kinds of statistics on polluted air and
water, we would like to pass. If you ask most people in this country,
they would agree that this is not the kind of environment they want
their kids to grow up in.
The fourth disturbing statement Mr. Pruitt has made is about lead.
Because of the EPA we have seen lead levels in both kids and adults
drop by more than 80 percent in the past few decades. This is one of
the legacy achievements of this Agency. This is something the next
leader of the EPA should understand, but the senior Senator from
Maryland, Mr. Cardin, raised this during a confirmation hearing. The
Senator asked Mr. Pruitt if ``there is any safe level of lead that can
be taken into the human body, particularly a young person.'' Another
softball question.
Here is how Mr. Pruitt answered him: ``Senator, that is something I
have not reviewed nor know about.'' This is pretty alarming because
clearly he does not understand that in just 30 years this is an issue
that the EPA has taken on as a high priority. This is an issue that we
need the next leader to take seriously so we don't see any kind of
backsliding. If you look at Mr. Pruitt's actions, they do, in fact,
speak loudly about his approach to the EPA. Here is another news
report:

The new administration is reportedly looking to close the
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and instead
let individual program offices handle enforcement. The outlet
inside EPA quoted ``a source familiar with the plan'' who
says the Trump administration intends to ``disassemble the
enforcement office . . . take it, break it up, and move it
back into the program offices.''
Environmental advocates were quick to point out that Scott
Pruitt--the Oklahoma Attorney General Trump picked to lead
the EPA--made almost the same move back home. Pruitt closed
his office's Environmental Protection Unit not long after he
took office in 2011.

Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 14 minutes remaining.
Mr. SCHATZ. But Mr. Pruitt did more than close Oklahoma's
Environmental Protection Unit. He also started a new unit solely
dedicated to suing the EPA. He closed the Environmental

[[Page S1320]]

Protection Unit and set up a unit to sue the EPA. That is all they do--
the other unit that people in Oklahoma might count on to investigate
water contamination or illegal dumping. Mr. Pruitt's new unit has been
quite active. Their office has filed more than a dozen lawsuits against
the EPA. He has sued the EPA because of the way it tackles cross-state
air pollution and the Agency's limits to oil and gas pollution. He sued
to allow air pollution when facilities start up, shut down,
malfunction, and to stop plans to address air pollution in his home
State.
He sued the EPA because he disagrees with the Clean Power Plan, which
will prevent an estimated 90,000 asthma attacks every year while saving
American families money on their electric bill. He sued EPA to end
protections against carbon pollution from new powerplants, even though
these protections will cost companies very little to implement, and he
challenged the clean water rule, which the EPA says protects the
streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our water resources.
This is not a comprehensive list. I think there are 17 lawsuits he
has filed. Guess what. Some of them are still pending. Mr. Pruitt was
asked: Will you recuse yourself from the lawsuits in which you are the
plaintiff? And he refused. So he is going to be the plaintiff and the
defendant.
I am sure Mr. Pruitt is a good person, I am sure he is good to his
family, but he also needs to be good to the American people and
faithful to the law: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Endangered
Species Act. This is the foundation of what the EPA does. He doesn't
get to have an opinion about those laws. He gets to implement those
laws. If he wants to run for office, he can run for office and change
those laws. If he wants to referee what authorities exist on those
lawsuits, he can litigate, but if he is going to be the EPA
Administrator, he has to check his ideological baggage at the door, and
there is only one way we can be sure that he will not take his biases
to the EPA.
I don't understand why in his confirmation hearing he didn't say:
Look, anywhere I brought suit, anywhere I am a plaintiff, I am out. It
is not unusual for a nominee to say on certain issues: I will recuse.
There is ample precedent. It was done this year. It is also just plain
common sense. It is the moral thing to do, the ethical thing to do, and
it is politically smart because it is a problem that this person wants
to remain plaintiff and defendant.
So it is disappointing and it is worrying. The agenda needs to uphold
the Agency's mandate not to dismantle what the EPA has already done.
Senator Booker asked Mr. Pruitt how many kids in Oklahoma had asthma.
Fair question to ask when you consider how many lawsuits Mr. Pruitt has
filed against the EPA that if he wins will increase air pollution, and
you can bet that more air pollution will hurt those kids who already
have trouble breathing. Mr. Pruitt did not know how many kids in his
home State have asthma, but here is the answer: 1 in 10--1 in 10 kids
have asthma.
If Mr. Pruitt takes over the EPA, he is no longer responsible for
just the kids in Oklahoma who have asthma. He is also responsible for
the kids across the country and in my home State of Hawaii. There are
millions of people in the United States who suffer from asthma, and for
each and every one of them, not to mention the countless others at
risk, Scott Pruitt guarantees that it will become harder to breathe.
Scott Pruitt is going to guarantee that it becomes harder to breathe
because he has sued the EPA to end the regulations that keep our air
clean enough for us to breathe. Never before in the history of the
Environmental Protection Agency has a President nominated someone so
opposed to the mission of the EPA. Look, this administration has made
it very clear where it stands on climate, on science, on protecting
clean air and clean water.
We have seen climate change called the Chinese hoax. We have heard
rumors that scientists will be muzzled and research stopped. We have
seen the President sign a law that allows oil companies to hide what
kinds of payment it is making to foreign governments in exchange for
extracting oil. So there is no question that dirty energy is preferred
by the current administration, but that doesn't mean the Senate has to
be a rubberstamp here.
We are the Senate, and the United States Senate has a specific role
under our Constitution and in our history. There comes a time where
issues related to party have to be subsumed by issues related to the
health and welfare of the country, and we have strayed from the
bipartisan consensus that existed for decades and decades and decades,
the basic premise that it is an American value in every small town, in
every urban place from coast to coast, and everywhere in between,
everybody likes clean air and clean water. Everybody at some point on a
weekend wants to drive someplace or walk someplace and just be outside
and be able to take a deep breath, enjoy your family, enjoy your
friends, enjoy not having to work for 2 or 3 hours--go fishing, go
hunting, go hiking, go surfing, go snowboarding, go skiing, whatever it
is that people like to do to kind of restore themselves, that depends
on our commitment to a legacy, and it depends on a commitment to these
statutes. It really does. It depends on our commitment to the Clean Air
Act and to the Clean Water Act and to the Endangered Species Act.
I will just close with this. I have never seen the Senate in such a
rush when there is not an actual deadline. I mean, we hurry when the
government may shut down--and sometimes we screw that up too--but
usually when we are in a hurry like this, when we are doing all night,
there is a reason for it. I think it is just weird that congressional
delegation trips overseas were canceled, multiple Members on a
bipartisan basis were supposed to be meeting with NATO allies about 2
hours from now, but all of that got canceled.
Normally our vote is on a Thursday afternoon or a Friday morning, and
this vote is at 1 p.m. on Friday. That is because somebody is bound and
determined to get this vote done before those 3,000 emails between
Scott Pruitt and a bunch of energy companies are disclosed. It is not a
theoretical thing anymore. There was some talk about whether this was
going to be disclosed. Now a judge is ordering that these emails get
disclosed. Now everybody seems to be in an incredible hurry to make
sure that we conduct this vote before those emails are disclosed.
I was talking to Senator Whitehouse and Senator Murphy about the
content of those emails. I don't know what is in those emails, but here
is what I know. I know the attorney general spent 750 days trying not
to disclose those emails. I know they are between him and a bunch of
energy companies. I know there seems to be a strong motivation on the
Republican side to conduct the vote before we get the emails. And in
the world's greatest deliberative body, it seems absolutely reasonable
and consistent with our constitutional obligation to provide advice and
consent on nominees and especially for a Cabinet position as important
as this.
It just seems like we should probably wait to see what is in those
emails. If I were a Republican on the other side, I would be very
uncomfortable casting a ``yes'' vote, and I would be waking up Tuesday
morning, probably at 1 a.m., and checking on the Internet and hoping
there was nothing explosive in those emails. I hope there is nothing
explosive in those emails. I don't want to know that we just confirmed
someone who is inappropriate for the EPA, but we are going to know by
Tuesday.
If my concerns are not well-founded, great. We can vote two Mondays
from now, and we will have a new EPA nominee, but why not wait to find
out what is in the emails. So I urge a ``no'' vote tomorrow, but more
than that, I urge that we give ourselves the time to deliberate and to
be a Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to share
with my colleagues why Scott Pruitt is unqualified to be Administrator
of the EPA and why I oppose his nomination.
I just got a new job here in the Senate when the people of Illinois
elected me last November, and I have a little advice for Mr. Pruitt on
how to succeed in an interview. No. 1, don't go to a job interview and
spend the entire time dodging questions. You don't tell the people
interviewing you to go file document requests, which Mr. Pruitt can

[[Page S1321]]

reject as attorney general, and you don't oppose policies that
strengthen our energy security like the renewable fuel standard. I am
concerned that the RFS will be gutted under a Scott Pruitt-led EPA.
As someone who fought to defend this great Nation, I see firsthand
the price we pay for our dependence on oil imported from our
adversaries. I already fought a war over oil, and I would rather run my
car on American-grown corn and soybeans than oil from the Middle East.
During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 50 percent of all casualties occurred
during convoy operations, and 80 percent of all convoy operations were
conducted to transport diesel fuel. I think it is high time we invest
more energy and more money and more support into development of
biofuels like ethanol.
In addition to risking lives, we are wasting resources. Annually, we
spend approximately $67.5 billion protecting global oil supplies. At
home, Americans are using more gas than ever before. Yet OPEC has made
it clear they are controlling the price we pay at the pump.
For example, in November of 2016, OPEC decided to cut its oil
production to increase prices, and it caused a 10-percent increase in
prices that very day. By December 12, prices had reached an 18-month
high. We should not be risking lives and wasting money when we can use
energy grown right here at home in States like mine. When we are
producing more oil at home than ever before, that doesn't mean we can
gut policies that are helping our Nation become energy independent. We
need an EPA Administrator who will work with Congress to help us find
ways to cut, not increase, our use of oil.
Scott Pruitt called the RFS unworkable. He clearly doesn't know that
the renewable fuel standard is delivering triple bottom-line benefits.
It is good for our security, it is good for our economy, and it is good
for our climate. In my State of Illinois alone, the RFS employs more
than 4,000 people and generates more than $5 billion in economic
impact. Nationwide it is supporting 86,000 direct jobs. Those are good
jobs with good wages. Those are people who are going home and paying
their mortgages, sending their kids to school, and saving money toward
retirement. It has helped to generate $8.7 billion in tax revenues that
go to schools, roads, and first responders.

Mr. Pruitt's failure to support the RFS is not the only reason I
oppose his nomination.
During his confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public
Works Committee, which I sit on, Mr. Pruitt gave vague, hollow, and
evasive answers. It was clear that he either doesn't support or
understand the mission of the very Agency he would like to lead.
Mr. Pruitt, the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to
protect the basic ingredients that people need for a good life. It is
to protect our air and our water. These issues, public health issues,
are what he has spent his career in helping Big Oil to dismantle.
Take the issue of lead poisoning. One of the responsibilities of the
EPA is to enforce our lead contamination laws that keep lead out of our
air and water. When questioned at his confirmation hearing, I was
shocked that Mr. Pruitt was unaware that there was no safe level of
lead for children.
As a mom, this terrifies me. I remember sitting in the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee when we had hearings on the
Flint water crisis. I am a mom of a 2-year-old, and at the time my baby
was just 1 year old. I remember being pregnant and having my daughter.
I looked out into that audience, and I saw a mom holding a baby bottle
that looked exactly like one my daughter drank out of--a little bottle
with a pink top on it. The water in her baby bottle that she had to
make her formula with was brown. It was brown. I thought about what it
would have been like for me to have been drinking that water while I
was pregnant and to have fed that water to my child and to have had the
choice of: Could I have afforded bottled water or would I have to feed
my daughter that water? It is not acceptable, not in the greatest
country on the face of the Earth.
Mr. Pruitt doesn't know there is no safe level of lead allowed in the
drinking water for children? Even low levels of lead can cause
permanent brain damage in kids, lower IQs, and inflict other cognitive
damage. There is no excuse for our Nation's EPA Administrator to not
know that basic fact. That is a serious oversight, especially in the
aftermath of the Flint water crisis. Lead in schools and in public
waterways is a serious problem for Illinois children as well as for the
children of Michigan. It is a problem for families. It is a problem for
families and for children all across this Nation.
The EPA should work proactively to prevent crises like in Flint and
to protect America's water supplies, but Mr. Pruitt's record of filing
lawsuit after lawsuit that challenge the EPA's authority to carry out
its mission doesn't inspire much confidence that his goals are the same
as the Agency's that he seeks to lead. The American people simply
cannot afford to have someone with a well-documented history of putting
corporate polluters' profits before our clean air and water leading the
Agency that is meant to safeguard them--the EPA.
We are only starting to learn the extent of Mr. Pruitt's conflicts of
interest, and we have an opportunity to learn more about these
conflicts now that a State judge in Oklahoma has ordered Mr. Pruitt to
release by Tuesday potentially thousands of emails he exchanged with
fossil fuel interests in his job as the Oklahoma attorney general.
Senate Republicans are forcing us to vote on Mr. Pruitt before Tuesday
because they know the American people will be alarmed and shocked by
what his correspondence will reveal.
Mr. Pruitt has shown he is unwilling and unable to do this job. I
remember, during questioning in committee, he was asked what was the
role of the EPA. He spent the majority of his answer talking about the
Federal Government not infringing on States' rights and talking about
pulling the Federal Government and the EPA out of the States' business.
Only at the very end did he add, almost as an afterthought--oh, yes--
``and to safeguard the water and the air.'' The name of the Agency is
the Environmental Protection Agency. That should have been the first
thing he said, not the last.
He doesn't understand the central public health and environmental
challenges that face us. Instead of siding with people, he has chosen
to side with corporate polluters. He doesn't have a single
environmental accomplishment to his name. He is unqualified, and I urge
my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.
As someone who represents a farming State, I remember when President
Trump came out to the Midwest and promised the American farmers that he
would support the renewable fuel standard. I am deeply disappointed he
has nominated someone to head the EPA who is clearly opposed to the
renewable fuel standard.
I asked Mr. Pruitt several times in committee, in several different
ways, if he would stand by the American farmer. I even told him what
the right answer was--side with, stand with, protect the producers, and
he refused to answer. He gave vague, evasive answers and refused to
commit and refused to support the American farmer.
It is a no-brainer. Support the American farmer. Don't break the
President's promise. Don't back away from the RFS.
Mr. Pruitt is continuing his administration's tradition of using
alternative facts. The alternative to facts is fiction, and we cannot
afford to have an Administrator who questions climate change. Climate
change is an urgent threat to our Nation. Increasing temperatures are
causing extreme weather events at alarming rates. We are witnessing
more intense droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather across this
country. If we put our heads in the sand and fail to curb the pollution
that drives climate change, the effects will be devastating as our air
quality will worsen, which will trigger more asthma attacks and other
respiratory issues for our children; our coastal communities will be
threatened by sea level rise; our national security will be threatened
as climate change creates instability around the world.

ADM Mike Mullen, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
under the Bush and Obama administrations, had this to say about climate
change:

[[Page S1322]]

Whatever the cause, climate change's potential impacts are
sobering and far-reaching. Glaciers are melting at a faster
rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia; rising sea
levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement
similar to what we saw in Pakistan's 2010 floods.

The National Intelligence Council's report, ``Global Trends 2030,''
made similar observations.
Their report states: ``Many developing and fragile states, such as in
Sub-Saharan Africa, face increasing strain from resource constraints
and climate change, pitting different tribal and ethnic groups against
one another and accentuating the separation of various identities.''
Climate change, clean air, clean water, and fighting lead
contamination are not partisan issues. We don't only have these issues
in red States or blue States--they are universal--and the American
people expect us to make sure the head of the Agency that is charged
with safeguarding these vital health priorities will be able and
willing to do the job.
Since Mr. Pruitt was nominated, I have heard concerns from thousands
of my constituents. Let me share a few words that I have received from
my home State.
This letter is from one of my constituents from Illinois.
He writes:

I am asking you to vote ``no'' on Scott Pruitt's nomination
as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
America's clean water and air are a shining example for much
of the world, and the EPA is their defender. Mr. Pruitt
demonstrates no understanding of ocean acidification and the
urgent risk it poses to American marine life, fishermen, and
the communities that depend on them. Americans must protect
our water and air from further pollution while we work
collaboratively toward win-win solutions to challenges like
ocean acidification. Mr. Pruitt ignores established science,
and he is the wrong choice to lead the EPA. As my Senator,
please vote ``no'' on my behalf.

I hear you, and I share your concerns, and I will be voting no on Mr.
Pruitt as Administrator of the EPA.
As you may know, EPA region 5 is based in my State, in Chicago. I
have heard from a number of EPA employees as well as from
constituents--employees, both past and present--who are worried about
the Agency they have served and loved. Here are some words from a
former region 5 employee.
He writes:

Dear Senator Duckworth, I and many other former employees
of the Environmental Protection Agency want to share our
concern about Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications
to serve as the next Administrator of the EPA. Our
perspective is not partisan. Having served under both
Republican and Democratic Presidents, we recognize the right
of a new administration to pursue new policies that protect
our environment, but the EPA's Administrator must act in the
public's interest and not simply advance the agendas of the
industries that it regulates.
Decisions that affect the public's health or natural
resources should respect the law and reflect the best
scientific evidence available. Mr. Pruitt's record and public
statements suggest that he does not share these values. As
Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt issued more than 50
press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn EPA standards
to limit mercury emissions from powerplants, reduce smog
levels in cities and regional haze in parks, clean up the
Chesapeake Bay, or control greenhouse gas emissions. In
contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's press releases refer to any
action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or to
actually reduce pollution.
Of even greater concern, his statements frequently ignore
or misrepresent EPA's authority to regulate or its obligation
to do so under the Clean Air or Clean Water Act. Mr. Pruitt
has shown little interest in the kind of scientific and
factual evidence that must guide EPA decisions. Mr. Pruitt
has said that humanity's contribution to global warming is
subject to considerable debate. That statement is at odds
with the consensus among scientists. Mr. Pruitt fails to
understand the difference between the public interest and the
private interest.

It is just amazing to me that we are even here, that this man was
even nominated--someone who has sued the EPA, someone who has so
clearly been in partnership with the fossil fuel industry and who has
not put the interests of families and children first as opposed to the
interests of the fossil fuel industry, which have been guiding him all
the way.
I, in fact, was shocked to learn that Mr. Pruitt closed the Oklahoma
Environmental Enforcement Unit established by his predecessor. Instead,
he established a new litigation team to challenge the EPA and other
Federal agencies. Let me say that again. When he became the Oklahoma
attorney general, he closed the Oklahoma Environmental Enforcement
Unit. Instead, he chose to start a new litigation team to challenge the
EPA and other Federal agencies.
I did not see any indication from him, in his confirmation hearing,
that he would not do the same once he gets to the Federal EPA. Perhaps
that is the intent of the Trump administration, to bring someone in who
will dismantle the EPA. That is why I am here tonight. That is why I am
opposing him--because I put the needs of our children, the needs of our
environment, and the needs of our national security in front of the
needs of the biofuel industry. We need an Administrator who has the
patience, skill, and commitment to public service in order to steer the
EPA through challenges that are associated with protecting our public
health.
I, too, cannot believe Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated that he has the
qualities needed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. I hope
you will be happy to know that is why I am opposing his nomination.
A constituent from Deerfield, IL, wrote to me:

I am writing to ask that you raise your voice in Washington
against Scott Pruitt as President Trump's nominee for EPA
Administrator.
The EPA is an organization driven by science and dedicated
to protecting the climate and environment, not just for
Americans but for all citizens of the Earth. Mr. Pruitt, on
the other hand, disagrees with a vast majority of the
scientific establishment as to the extent of climate change
and humanity's role in it. He has made a name for himself by
opposing EPA's policies and missions in the past.
It is beyond me that anyone believes Mr. Pruitt could
effectively head the EPA and lead it further in its mission
to ensure we are responsible stewards of this planet's
environment and resources. I ask that you do your duty as a
citizen of this planet and vote ``no'' on Mr. Pruitt for this
position.
The EPA is an organization driven by science and dedicated
to protecting the climate and environment, not just for
Americans, but for all nations of the Earth. Mr. Pruitt, on
the other hand, disagrees with the vast majority of the
scientific establishment. Vote no on Mr. Pruitt for this
position.
I hope you all do your duty as representatives of the
American people by vocalizing our concerns with Mr. Pruitt to
your fellow Senators, urging them to see the fault in
President Trump's nomination.
Respectfully, Ethan, Deerfield, IL.

Well, Ethan, I am doing exactly that. That is why I am here today--to
make sure that our colleagues understand how poorly suited Mr. Pruitt
is to this job of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Here is a letter from a Ph.D. student from Northwestern University.

As a Northwestern University doctorate student, I have
chosen to devote my life to the pursuit of scientific
knowledge. I am deeply troubled by the nomination of Scott
Pruitt, and I am really concerned about the upcoming Senate
vote.
The head of the EPA must uphold basic science and should
not be colluding with the polluters they are required to
regulate. Scott Pruitt cannot be trusted to head the EPA, an
agency that is charged with protecting all Americans from
threats to their water, air, and health.
Pruitt is also out of step with the vast majority of
scientists, not only those working in the field of climate
change, but also those who have dedicated their lives to
protecting our air and water. As a scientific agency charged
with protecting the public's health according to the best and
most recent science, the EPA deserves to be headed by someone
with a scientific background, or at least an appreciation for
scientific truth.
I strongly urge you as my Senator to stand up for me and my
neighbors, and I oppose this nomination.
Thank you so much, Amanda Cook, from North Lakeview Avenue
in Chicago.

Well, Amanda, I get it. I am with you. I, of course, did not pursue a
Ph.D. in a scientific field, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in a
scientific field to know that a man who has sued the EPA over a dozen
times is not someone suitable to lead the EPA; that a man who said that
he doesn't know whether climate change truly is scientific fact should
not be the man who is going to head the Agency enforced with dealing
with the effects of global warming. He should not be the person who is
in charge of the Agency that will be protecting our air and our water
supply.
We have not even touched on what the costs will be to this Nation if
we continue to neglect the well-being of our environment. Rising rates
of asthma of our children will mean higher

[[Page S1323]]

medical costs. Lead in the water supply causing cognitive damage to our
children will mean that additional resources must be spent in our
schools in order to provide those children with the best opportunities
that they can have to grow and thrive and will also result in greater
medical bills to treat those children for the rest of their lives.
If you don't believe me, just ask the people of Flint, MI. They are
dealing with it every single day--every single day--those parents of
children who have now been affected by the lead in that water supply.
And Mr. Pruitt chooses to defend and protect the needs of the biofuels
industry over the needs of our children. That is not someone worthy of
representing the American people. That is not someone worthy of heading
this Agency.
Let's just stick to Mr. Pruitt's own words, not the words of others,
not the words of my constituents, but his own words. This is what he
said about the Agency that he has been chosen to lead. Mr. Pruitt
describes himself as ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist
agenda.'' He said this on his LinkedIn page. We accessed this in
January of 2016.
On the role of the EPA he says:

I believe the EPA has a role to play in our Republican form
of government. Air and water quality issues can cross State
lines and can sometimes require Federal intervention. At the
same time, the EPA was never intended to be our Nation's
frontline environmental regulator.

This was his testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology in May of 2016.
I disagree with you. I disagree with you, Mr. Pruitt, because I was
there at that hearing where there were both State EPA officials as well
as Federal EPA officials trying to explain why they allowed Detroit's
children to be poisoned. And the Federal EPA official knew about the
lead in the water supply--in fact, had discovered it--and they were so
timid about pursuing it that they waited too long and allowed the State
to continue to move forward. Those Federal EPA officials were indeed on
the frontline.
I asked the Regional Administrator, Would you not rather be in front
of this committee today explaining why you acted too quickly to save
the health and the future well-being of the children of Flint than to
be here in front of us today explaining why you allowed them to be
poisoned, and not exercise your right as the Federal EPA to step in
when the health and well-being of American citizens were at stake?
So Mr. Pruitt, I disagree with you. The EPA was indeed intended to be
one of our Nation's frontline environmental regulators.
On climate change, Mr. Pruitt has said:

Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates
of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists
continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global
warming and its connections to the actions of mankind. That
debate should be encouraged in classrooms, public forums, and
the halls of Congress.

Really. He is actually arguing that we should be teaching false
science and should be encouraging it in classrooms and public forums. I
can't think of something that would be a greater disservice to America
than for the EPA Administrator to be someone who actually looks at
scientific data--proven scientific data, facts--and rejects them. Yet,
we know why he does. We know from his history. We know from his record
in Oklahoma. He does it because the fossil fuel industry tells him so.
This is what he said about the Clean Power Plan:

The President could announce the most ``state friendly''
plan possible, but it would not change the fact that the
administration does not have the legal authority under the
Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does, Mr. Pruitt.
He just said that in August of 2015.
Here is what he said on methane regulation:

My concern is that EPA is employing its flawed methodology
in order to rationalize new and unjustified Federal
regulations to solve a methane emissions problem that simply
does not exist.

This man does not believe in global warming. This man does not
believe in scientific data.
If you don't believe the scientists, at least look at what is
happening with the storm systems, with what is happening to the climate
that is changing and affecting this Nation with increased drought,
increased flooding, more severe weather, and erosion. We had the first
climate change refugees of Louisiana where people who have lived for
generations in the gulf have now seen their islands washed away and
have to be resettled.
Even if you don't believe in the data, believe your eyes and believe
the facts.
Mr. Pruitt also said:

The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury
poses public health hazards. Human exposure to methylmercury
resulting from coal-fired EGUs is exceedingly small.

That is simply untrue.
On legislating, he has said:

Legislation should not be ``we like clean air, so go make
clean air.'' That is what bothers me, that Congress gives
this general authority to EPA.

On Oklahoma's race to the bottom on environmental regulations--this
has to do with the Federal regional haze standards--Mr. Pruitt said:

These standards threaten the competitive edge Oklahoma has
enjoyed for years with low cost and reliable electric
generation. This low-cost energy not only benefits Oklahoma
manufacturers but gives us a considerable edge in recruiting
new jobs.

He would rather increase the haze and the pollution in the
environment. He would rather have an economic edge at the expense of
the people of Oklahoma who must live and breathe more polluted air.
This is what he said on the renewable fuels standard:

The evidence is clear that the current ethanol fuel mandate
is unworkable. The decision by the EPA to lower that standard
is good news for Oklahoma consumers.

What he means is that it is good news for Oklahoma's fossil fuel
producers. In fact, the renewable fuel standards have been a success
and we should be adhering to them and we should be keeping the
renewable fuel standards and supporting the producers.
I will bet on the American farmer any day of the week. Our farmers
work hard. Our farmers produce the corn for ethanol right here in the
United States. I would rather invest in them than in foreign oil. I
would rather invest in them and in a fuel that is clean-burning versus
a fuel that pollutes the environment for the next generation of our
Nation.
Even if you don't believe in the science, believe in the dollars.
Ethanol and biofuels employ tens of thousands of hard-working Americans
all across this great Nation. It accounts for large proportions of the
economies of the farming States, including Illinois, Iowa, Ohio. So
even if you don't believe, you should at least support our farming
communities.
It is a fact that Scott Pruitt is simply too extreme to lead the EPA.
He once wrote an entire op-ed questioning the science of climate
change. He said:

This is according to an op-ed written by Scott Pruitt in the Tulsa
World.
He goes on:

Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and
global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates
of our time. That debate is far from settled.

I agree that healthy debate is important to democracy, but when that
debate is over and becomes an item of fact, it is just simply silly,
and in the case of clean air and clean water and climate change, it
gets to be dangerous.
His climate denial goes against the scientific community. Ninety-
seven percent of scientists, including those at NASA, agree that human
activities are causing climate change.
The 18 major national scientific organizations issued a joint
statement with the following conclusion:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research
demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver.

Mr. Pruitt's climate denial is also against the will of the American
people. In fact, a New York Times/Stanford poll from 2015 showed that
77 percent of Americans support government action to combat climate
change. This poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61
percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to

[[Page S1324]]

reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the
future. Seventy-seven percent of Americans, according to this poll, say
that the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to
combat climate change.
In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll from 2009, 67 percent of Americans
stated that they supported EPA action to curb carbon pollution from
powerplants, while only 29 percent opposed them. In that same poll, 57
percent supported requiring companies to cut emissions even if it means
higher power bills. This was an increase from 48 percent in October of
2009 to the poll that was conducted in June of 2014.
Mr. Pruitt's blatantly anti-environment agenda threatens public
health. He is unfit to lead an Agency that he sued at every turn to
block protections for clean air and water. He sued the EPA over the
legality of the Clean Power Plan. He claims that the EPA does not have
the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas
emissions.
Since becoming Oklahoma's top legal officer in 2011, Mr. Pruitt has
unsuccessfully attempted to stop vital protections of public health--
unsuccessfully. This includes standards for reducing soot and smog
pollution that crosses interstate lines; protections against emissions
of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants from
powerplants; and standards to improve air quality in national parks and
wilderness areas. Each time he has done this, he has failed. Yet he
continues to file suit.

He did many of these suits in conjunction with the fossil fuel
industry. Some of those suits are still outstanding. Yet he has said--
he has refused to commit to recusing himself from any of these lawsuits
that may come in front of the EPA while he is the Administrator of the
Agency. That is a conflict of interest. He will simply become the
plaintiff, the judge, and the jury if he does not recuse himself. But
of course that is his goal. His goal is to dismantle the EPA. His goal
is to dismantle the Clean Water Act. His goal is to take away the
authority of the EPA to regulate and protect those activities that
affect our environment.
Mr. Pruitt launched three separate failed lawsuits against EPA's
clean air rules, the regional haze cross-state air pollution rule, and
the mercury and air toxics protections, otherwise known as MATs. The
Supreme Court flat-out rejected Mr. Pruitt's challenges to the EPA's
mercury standards. Thank God, because it protects millions of children
from the effects of mercury, arsenic, and other dangers neurotoxins
from coal plants.
Mr. Pruitt wants to block the EPA's clean water rule, which will
protect the drinking water for over 117 million--that is one in three--
Americans. One in three Americans gets drinking water from streams that
lacked clear protections before the clean water rule.
According to analysis of over 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific reports,
small streams and wetlands play a critical role in the health of larger
downstream bodies, such as rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters.
Mr. Pruitt doesn't even want the EPA to study fracking's potential
links to water contamination. As recently as 2014, he sent a letter to
the EPA Office of Inspector General warning against preliminary
research into threats to water resources posed by hydraulic fracturing.
He said he believed EPA's efforts to study whether fracking was linked
to groundwater contamination was politically motivated. He is even
afraid of a study. Not only is he trying to block the EPA's ability to
regulate, he doesn't even want the EPA to study it. He doesn't even
want it to have the chance to develop the data to show that our water
supply is under danger from fracking.
This man doesn't believe in scientific data, but he is afraid of it.
If he weren't afraid of it, he would support these studies because they
would show that he was right. But here is the problem: He is not right.
He is wrong. The scientific data shows that such activities pollute our
water supply.
Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly failed to act to protect the people of
Oklahoma from increasingly powerful earthquakes caused by fossil fuel
extraction through the process of fracking as well. We have had a
string of level 5 magnitude earthquakes hit the State of Oklahoma.
Scientists have indicated that they are being caused by a dramatic rise
in the use of hydraulic fracturing--fracking--to produce oil and gas.
The problem lies in the massive volumes of wastewater unearthed in the
process of unlocking oil and gas. Operators typically dump salty
wastewater, injecting high volumes of fluid into the disposal wells dug
thousands of feet below the Earth's surface, but the pressure from
wastewater is wreaking havoc on Oklahoma's fault lines.
The Oklahoma Geological Survey bluntly concluded last year that it
was very likely that the majority of earthquakes that ripped through
the central and northern regions of the State were caused by this
process of injecting wastewater into disposal wells. This was reported
by NBC News in November of 2016.
In 2016, the National Review reported that Mr. Pruitt compared taking
on Big Oil to offenses committed by the British leading to the American
Revolution. It said:

The United States was born out of a revolution against, in
the words of the Declaration of Independence, an ``arbitrary
government'' that put men on trial for ``pretended offenses''
and ``abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.'' Brave
men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and
this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is
governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product.

Some of our States have forgotten this founding principle and are
acting less like Jefferson and Adams and more like George III.
A group of Democratic attorneys general has announced it intends to
criminally investigate oil and gas companies that have disputed the
science behind manmade global warming. Backed by green energy interests
and environmental lobbying groups, the coalition has promised to use
intrusive investigations, costly litigations, and criminal prosecutions
to silence critics of its climate change agenda. This is from the
National Review.
He is comparing the efforts to take on Big Oil to offenses committed
by the British leading to the American Revolution. I will take on Big
Oil any day. I think it is important for our Nation's future.
As we have heard during the course of this debate, those of us who
are troubled by the prospect of Mr. Pruitt becoming EPA Administrator
believe that the process to this point has been marred by his failure
to provide us with the information we feel we need to evaluate his
suitability to serve in this critical role. Meanwhile, our colleagues
on the other side of the aisle argue that Mr. Pruitt has been fully
forthcoming. So let's put this dispute aside and turn our attention to
a question Mr. Pruitt did answer. It may be among the most revealing of
his responses. Unfortunately, what his answer reveals is the precise
reason so many of us and so many of the people we represent are opposed
to his confirmation and convinced he is absolutely the wrong person to
head the agency.
Senator Carper asked Mr. Pruitt: Are there any other EPA regulations
that are on the books today that you do support?
Mr. Pruitt declined to name a single one. Not one. He has many that
he could choose from. In fact, the question should have been something
of a softball, in my view, giving him a chance to embrace the EPA's
core mission as a public health Agency. He couldn't find a single
regulation that he could support within the EPA. The man who is
supposed to be heading the EPA could not think of a single regulation
of this Agency that he could support.
Instead, what Mr. Pruitt does not seem to grasp is that EPA
regulations are not simply policies to be litigated. In reality, they
are lifesaving protections for so many Americans, and they create
millions of dollars of net benefits.
Let's take a look at some of the public health environmental
protections Mr. Pruitt cannot bring himself to support.
The mercury and air toxic standards have been projected to save up to
11,000 lives annually from premature deaths--11,000 lives annually from
premature deaths, saved because of these regulations. They also prevent
heart attacks and avoid 5,700 emergency room visits. That translates
into over $80 billion in net benefits in a single year. That is a lot
of lives saved, illnesses avoided, and economic benefits created that a

[[Page S1325]]

would-be EPA Administrator can't bring himself to support.

Of course, we should have expected Mr. Pruitt to name that rule since
he has sued to block it twice, the second time being after EPA modified
the rule to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the
number of rules we could expect Mr. Pruitt to support is a bit smaller
than we might have thought since he blocked so many of them. In case
after case after case, he has sued to block the EPA from working to
save lives, prevent illnesses, and create economic benefits.
He has sued on behalf of Oklahoma to block the cross-state air
pollution rule, otherwise known as the good neighbor rule. That rule
cuts the pollution that leads to dangerous, sometimes deadly, urban
smog and soot. When he sued, he was suing to block the American public
from enjoying the following benefits: up to 34,000 lives saved per
year, along with some $280 billion in health benefits.
When Mr. Pruitt brought an action against EPA's health-based
standards for ground-level ozone, he was standing in opposition to the
protections that would help avoid 660 premature deaths and over 230,000
asthma attacks, while creating $4.5 billion in health benefits net of
cost. Even if you don't believe in the science, you should at least
believe in the dollars and cents of the lives saved. Yet he continues
to sue the EPA to oppose these regulations.
Although Mr. Pruitt has been a tireless litigator, he has not
challenged every one of EPA's public health protections. But still,
when asked, the man who wants to become the Administrator of the EPA
could not name a single regulation of the Agency that he is about to
take charge of that he supported. That means, for example, Mr. Pruitt
probably doesn't support a rule that reduces the sulfur in gasoline so
that emission control devices on cars can work more effectively. Don't
we all want cars to work effectively? I guess he doesn't. This
particular rule stands to create net benefits of up to $17.5 billion by
2030. Those dollar figures include the benefit of saving up to 2,000
lives and preventing 2,220 hospital admissions and asthma-related
emergency room visits.
In 2015, the EPA set standards for the emissions of toxic air
pollutants at refineries. As a result, 1.4 million fewer people will be
exposed to cancer risks, yielding a 15- to 20-percent reduction in
cancer incidents linked to refinery air pollution. According to his
answer, Mr. Pruitt--who is seeking to be the EPA Administrator--doesn't
support those advancements in public health.
He also doesn't support rules that are protecting the brain
development of our children from exposure to lead in both gasoline and
paint. Otherwise, he may have answered my colleague Mr. Carper by
saying that he supported the highly successful gasoline lead phaseout
that dates all the way back to 1988. That regulation produced health
benefits to the tune of over $6 billion. He didn't even indicate that
he supports a rule addressing childhood lead exposure and renovation
repair and painting.
Mr. Pruitt didn't even tell us that he supports rules that put or
keep money in the pockets of families and businesses along with the
environmental benefits they deliver.
EPA's greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for cars and
light-duty trucks are calculated to save families $1.7 trillion--that
is a ``t''--in fuel costs.
The EPA's 2012 rule limiting the emissions of volatile organic
compounds in natural gas production were calculated to create up to $19
million in cost savings in 2015 alone because of the value of the
material recovered in the process of controlling emissions. Those
benefits, however, did not inspire Mr. Pruitt to support them.
The list of health protections Mr. Pruitt does not support goes on
and on. It includes health-based standards for fine particles or soot
which will achieve between $3.7 billion and $9 billion in health
benefits net of cost.
All of the rules I have mentioned are just a representative sample,
nowhere near an exhaustive list.
When Mr. Pruitt declined to name a single environmental regulation he
supported, he showed us how little he supports the central mission of
the EPA, which is not to produce rules and regulations but to take
action that creates health, environmental, and economic benefits for
the American people.
Clearly, along with much of the rest of his record, Mr. Pruitt is
declining to tell us he does support the health and environment
protection EPA has established. It shows why he is not a suitable
candidate to lead this Agency. He has shown throughout his career that
he has a blatantly anti-environmental agenda, and this agenda threatens
public health. He is not fit to lead this Agency--an Agency that he has
sued every single chance he has gotten to block protections for clean
air and water. I wonder why he does that. I wonder why.
Well, this might be a reason why. According to the National Institute
on Money and State Politics--we accessed this in December of last year,
just a few months ago--it appears that Mr. Pruitt has received over
$314,000 from fossil fuel industries since 2002. According to them,
Scott Pruitt has received a total of $314,996. He received $8,201 in
2002, $76,970 in 2006, $112,150 in 2010, and $117,775 in 2014.

It keeps growing and growing. I guess he is being rewarded by the
fossil fuel industry for suing the EPA over and over. I can't imagine
why they would continue to give him more money, other than the fact
that he keeps suing the EPA.
He has used letters written by Devon Energy lawyers to send to the
EPA. According to the New York Times, he sent a letter to the EPA from
his own office that was written by lawyers of Devon Energy, one of
Oklahoma's big oil and gas companies, and was brought to him by their
chief lobbyist. Their chief lobbyist, Mr. William Whitsitt, at the time
directed government relations for the company, and had presented a note
to Mr. Pruitt's office. Mr. Pruitt 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.
I don't think that is acceptable, and I certainly don't think that it
is a suitable way for someone who is going to head the EPA to conduct
himself.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a January 17 letter from the African American environmental justice
community leaders.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

January 17, 2017.
Hon. John Barrasso,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas R. Carper,
Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Senators Barrasso and Carper:
Please name one achievement by Scott Pruitt, as Oklahoma
State Attorney General, that has improved the environment or
protected civil rights. Don't bother to Google it because the
answer is NONE.
As the African American leaders of environmental justice
organizations, we urge the Senators serving on the
Environment and Public Works Committee to oppose the
confirmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. We are outraged that Mr.
Pruitt promises to set back and dismantle the policies and
programs we have worked for more than 30 years to develop
with community organizations across the nation. These
policies were developed pursuant to both federal civil rights
laws and environmental laws in order to remove racial
disparities in environmental protection.
As you know, the Senate's Environment and Public Works
Committee has scheduled a hearing on January 18, 2017 to
examine the nomination of Mr. Pruitt to the office of the EPA
Administrator by President-Elect Donald Trump. There is
nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as the current Oklahoma State
Attorney General to demonstrate that he would be dedicated to
the mission of the EPA, which is to protect human health and
the environment. Nor does his career indicate any action to
improve environmental conditions in people of color
communities, who are disproportionately burdened with
pollution.
Mr. Pruitt seeks to rise to the position of EPA
Administrator as a reward for his efforts to block the EPA
from mitigating the harmful effects of pollution ``outside
the fence-line'' of toxic industries.
Let's be clear: the people who live beyond the fence of
polluting industrial facilities and suffer the acute,
chronic, cumulative and synergistic effects of exposure to
pollution are predominantly African American and other people
of color.
Mr. Pruitt appears to relish the opportunity to remove
standards that are protective of our basic rights to a
healthy and safe

[[Page S1326]]

environment. Case in point: Mr. Pruitt's dogged effort to axe
the Obama Administration's Clean Power Plan would have
devastating effects on predominantly African American
communities. The Clean Power Plan requires the reduction of
carbon pollution from power plants. It is the first federal
air quality standard to establish requirements for states to
achieve environmental justice. These requirements are based
on the egregious fact that 78% of power plants are
disproportionately located in close proximity to people of
color and poor communities. The Clean Power Plan recognizes
the vulnerability of people of color and poor communities to
the disastrous effects of climate change, which is brought on
by the burning of fossil fuels. In the U.S., the largest
source of pollution driving climate change is power plants.
Additionally, this air quality standard direct states to
ensure meaningful and effective participation of vulnerable
communities in developing state plans for reducing power
plant pollution.
We recognize that the biggest climate and environmental
threats to our nation and planet are fueled, in part, by
racial disparities in environmental protection. Industrial
sites and major transportation routes are disproportionately
located in and around predominantly African American
neighborhoods, where residents are daily exposed to the
smokestack and vehicle emissions that warm the planet as well
as trigger asthma attacks and cause other severe health
problems. We cannot effectively confront the threats of
climate change by confirming Mr. Pruitt, a climate denier, to
the post of EPA Administrator. We also cannot pursue remedies
for racial disparities in environmental protection with Mr.
Pruitt at the helm of the EPA, as he has shown himself to be
hostile to preventing pollution that occurs
disproportionately in communities of color.
We need an EPA Administrator who will work to remedy the
persistent and pervasive problem of environmental racism that
results in:
79% of African Americans living in polluted neighborhoods;
African American children being three to five times more
likely than white children to be hospitalized or die from
asthma;
African Americans in 19 states being more than twice as
likely as whites to live in neighborhoods with high pollution
levels, compared to Hispanics in 12 states and Asians in 7
states;
more than 68% of African Americans living within 30 miles
of a coal-fired power plant--the distance within which the
maximum negative health effects of the smokestack plume are
expected to occur--compared with 56% of whites and 39% of
Latinos who live in the same proximity to a coal-fired power
plant;
African Americans being more vulnerable than whites to
climate change, and less likely than whites to recover from
disastrous weather events;
the percentage of African Americans living near the fence
line of a chemical plant is 75% greater than for the US as a
whole, and the percentage of Latinos is 60% greater; and
predominantly African American neighborhoods with
households incomes between $50,000 and $60,000 being more
polluted than predominantly white neighborhoods with
households incomes below $10,000.
There is nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as Oklahoma State
Attorney General to indicate that he would be sensitive to
and willing to help communities throughout the United States,
where African Americans and other people of color
disproportionately suffer and die from unhealthy
environmental conditions, which also contribute to climate
change. For all of the reasons stated above, we urge you to
take a stand in opposing the confirmation of Mr. Pruitt as
EPA Administrator.
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Dr. Beverly Wright, Executive Director of the Deep
South Center for Environmental Justice, Inc.
Sincerely,
Dr. Beverly Wright, Executive Director, Deep South Center
for Environmental Justice, Inc; Dr. Robert D. Bullard,
Distinguished Professor, Urban Planning and Environmental
Policy, Texas Southern University; Ms. Peggy Shepard, WeACT
for Environmental Justice; Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr.,
President/CEO, Hip Hop Caucus; Ms. Francis Gilcreast,
President, NAACP--Flint Branch; Dr. Charlotte Keys, Executive
Director, Jesus People Against Pollution; Rev. Leo Woodberry,
Director, Kingdom Living Temple; Mrs. Sylvia Scineaux-
Richard, President, East New Orleans Advisory Commission; Mr.
Hilton Kelley, Founder & Director, Community In-Power &
Development Association; Mr. Kali Akuno, Co-Director,
Cooperation Jackson; Mr. David Fellows, Dehlson Chair of
Environmental Studies, Director, Global Environmental Justice
Project, University of California, Santa Barbara; Ms. Sharon
E. Lewis, Executive Director, Connecticut Coalition for
Environmental Justice.
Major Joe Womack, Vice-President, Mobile Environmental
Justice Action Coalition; Mr. Arthur Johnson, Chief Executive
Officer, Lower Ninth Ward Center for Sustainable Engagement;
Ms. Katherine T. Egland, Chairperson, Environmental and
Climate Justice Committee, NAACP National Board of Directors;
Ms. Rebecca O. Johnson, Consultant, Road Map Consulting, c/o
Common Counsel Foundation; Ms. Donele Wilkins, President/CEO,
Green Door Initiative; Rev. James Caldwell, Executive
Director, Coalition of Community Organizations; Dr. Mildred
McClain, Executive Director, Harambee House, Inc.; Ms. Ruth
Story, Executive Director, Education, Economics,
Environmental, Climate and Health Organization; Mr. Derrick
Evans, Director, Turkey Creek Community Initiatives; Mrs.
Dorothy McWilliams, Concerned Citizens for Melia; Rev. Calvin
Avant, Director, Unity in the Family Ministry; Ms. Bridgett
Murray, Director, Achieving Community Tasks Successfully; Mr.
Brian Butler, Communications Outreach, Director, Air Alliance
Houston.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, as is stated in this letter, it says:

As the African American leaders of environmental justice
organizations, we urge the Senators serving on the
Environment and Public Works Committee to oppose the
confirmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. We are outraged that Mr.
Pruitt promises to set back and dismantle the policies and
programs we have worked for more than 30 years to develop
with community organizations across the nation.
There is nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as current Oklahoma
State Attorney General to demonstrate that he would be
dedicated to the mission of the EPA, which is to protect
human health and the environment. Nor does his career
indicate any action to improve environmental conditions in
people color communities, who disproportionately burdened
with pollution.
Mr. Pruitt appears to relish the opportunity to remove
standards that are protective of our basic rights to a
healthy and safe environment. Case in point: Mr. Pruitt's
dogged effort to axe the Obama Administration's Clean Power
Plan would have devastating effects on predominantly African
American communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a January 17 letter from the leaders of over 20 regional and nationwide
Latino civic organizations to Members of the Senate.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[January 17, 2017]

Latinos Oppose Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator

Dear Senator: As Latino leaders, members and
representatives of the undersigned organizations committed to
efforts that support our communities' health, advancement,
safety and well-being, and on behalf of the concerned
communities we represent, we strongly urge you to oppose the
president-elect's nominee to lead the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.
Mr. Pruitt has made a career of suing the Environmental
Protection Agency, and has used his office to attack
lifesaving public health protections time and time again. His
record exhibits a reckless disregard for public health and a
deeply troubling contempt for the very mission of the agency
he has been nominated to lead. Mr. Pruitt denies the science
of climate change, suing to block national standards to fight
this crisis; he has fought against clean air protections,
opposing the Mercury and Air Toxics standard which would
prevent premature deaths and asthma attacks; he has sued the
EPA to overturn clean water safeguards for more than half of
the nation's waterways, including streams that feed into the
drinking water supplies of hundreds of millions of Americans.
Scott Pruitt is simply unfit to lead the EPA and, if
confirmed, would pose a danger to our communities.
Latinos overwhelmingly support actions to fight climate
change. We recognize the importance of protecting the
environment: 97 percent of Latinos agree we have a moral
obligation to take care of our environment. In December, the
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 of the
leading Latino organizations nationwide, voiced their
opposition to Mr. Pruitt's nomination, stating that they were
``particularly troubled by this choice,'' and pointing to the
prevalence of asthma and other respiratory diseases among
Latinos living near polluting power plants, truck routes, and
factories; as well as the large number Latinos who are
employed in outdoor occupations, including agriculture, where
they are exposed to health hazards, bad air quality, and the
impacts of extreme weather.
Americans did not vote for more air pollution, toxics, or
dirty water, nor did they vote to undo critical protections
that safeguard our children and communities. We did not vote
for more climate change or dirty energy. Putting the EPA in
Mr. Pruitt's hands does just that: he will threaten our
children's health, turn back the clock on landmark efforts to
clean up our air, water and climate, and imperil the United
States' position as a global clean energy leader.
We call on you to publicly declare your commitment to stand
up for our right to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and
be protected from pollution. We urge you to vote against all
legislative proposals that would in any way repeal, weaken or
undermine these rights, laws and safeguards. Our community is
counting on you to protect us by voting to reject Scott
Pruitt's nomination for Administrator of the U.S. EPA.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. Stated in this letter, it says:

As Latino leaders, members and representatives of the
undersigned organizations committed to efforts that support
our communities' health, advancement, safety, and

[[Page S1327]]

well-being, and on behalf of the concerned communities we
represent, we strongly urge you to oppose the president-
elect's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
Latinos overwhelmingly support actions to fight climate
change. We recognize the importance of protecting the
environment: 97 percent of Latinos agree we have a moral
obligation to take care of our environment. In December, the
National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 of the
leading Latino organizations nationwide, voiced their
opposition to Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
Putting the EPA in Mr. Pruitt's hands will threaten our
children's health, turn back the clock on landmark efforts to
clean up our air, water and climate, and imperil the United
States' position as a global lead energy leader.

I am also deeply concerned that we are holding this vote so quickly,
when not all of the evidence of Mr. Pruitt's activities has been
brought to light.
The fact of the matter is that we are still waiting for almost 2,000
emails to be released from his time as the Oklahoma State attorney
general. Only on Thursday afternoon was there a ruling that said those
emails must be released. Yet we are going to hold a vote, and my
colleagues will be forced to make a decision on behalf of the
constituents of their great States based on incomplete information.
I don't understand the need to rush this. I don't understand why we
would hold this vote so soon, so quickly, when there are other nominees
for other positions in the President's Cabinet whom we could vote on,
who do not have 2,000 hidden emails waiting to be released, waiting to
be reviewed.
I served on the Benghazi Committee in the House. I have to tell you
that one of the refrains I heard over and over from my Republican
colleagues, Republican voices, was that they just wanted to pursue
transparency, and they wanted to see all the emails, and yet the very
same people who were so dogged not too long ago now don't care to look
at any emails when it comes to Mr. Pruitt.
Why is that? Why are we so eager to have this vote? Do you just want
him to start dismantling the EPA that much sooner? Can't we wait a
week? I think we are doing a disservice to the gentlemen and women who
serve in this body. They deserve to have complete information before we
hold this vote. I think those emails that would be disclosed deserve to
be looked at. They deserve the light of day--transparency--so that we
can continue to evaluate and truly have more complete information on
Mr. Pruitt and his time as the Oklahoma State attorney general before
we pass this vote.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
a February 6 letter from nearly 500 former employees of the EPA to
Leader McConnell.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

February 6, 2017.
Subject: Concerns about Scott Pruitt's qualifications to
serve as EPA Administrator.

Hon. Mitch McConnell,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McConnell and the U.S. Senate: 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 questions 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 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 gives 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 action spared
much of the harm that some countries still face as 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 laws. Mr. Pruitt
has shown no interest in enforcing environmental 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 gas
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 rule to reduce carbon pollution from power
plants, he took the unusual step of accepting free help from
a private law firm. By contrast, there is little or 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 act on the strong scientific consensus on climate
change. 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 that ``science tells us
that the climate is changing, and that human activity in some
manner impacts

[[Page S1328]]

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.

Ms. DUCKWORTH. The unemotional appeal lays out the facts directly and
clearly and, as such, reads as a scathing condemnation of the Oklahoma
attorney general. Stated in this letter it says:

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.
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.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning to join
my colleagues to speak on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be
Administrator of the EPA. Like my colleagues who have been out here
tonight, the great Senator from Illinois, Senator Duckworth, and my
colleague from Hawaii who preceded her, we are here to talk about the
importance of our environment and what a critical asset it is to each
of our regions of the United States.
Certainly, you can say for the State of Washington that the
environment is our economy--the beautiful aspects of our clean water,
the resources of our beautiful mountains and wonderful streams, Puget
Sound itself, our mountains that so many of my colleagues ask me about.
These are all assets that make Washington State a great place to live,
work, and recreate in.
Our companies would tell you that one of the great things they have
in recruiting people to the State of Washington is that it is a
competitive advantage to say their business is located in Washington.
People understand what that means to the quality of life and to the
opportunities for those workers. It is with that in mind that I rise in
strong opposition to this nomination.
I had a chance yesterday to discuss Mr. Pruitt and to discuss some of
the concerns that I have with his role as Administrator, and in
Oklahoma in the attorney general slot, and also his nomination process.
Many of my colleagues this morning have brought up his record, what
that record represents, and their concerns about his answers to very
important questions.
This is about stewardship. Stewardship is about how we are going to
manage our resources and apply the laws of clean air and clean water to
protect not just this generation of Americans, but future generations
of Americans.
Mr. Pruitt's poor environmental record--in my opinion, he is choosing
to side with those companies that have been polluters of clean water
and failed to protect in an aggressive way the important public health
issues that were before people in his State.
Obviously, there is a big discussion tonight. My colleagues have been
out here discussing whether there is transparency in Oklahoma regarding
his ability to discuss with them his failures or his successes, if you
will, in a public process. That is why people have been demanding these
emails. These important documents are things that, not only the people
of Oklahoma, but people in the U.S. Senate have a right to have answers
to as we consider his nomination.
I join my colleague from Hawaii in saying, What is the rush? What is
the rush to push forward somebody as an administrator for something
that is about the stewardship of our air and water--something that is
going to be important, not just to our generation but future
generations? We want an EPA Administrator who is going to protect that.
That is what we want to know: Are you going to be an aggressive steward
for future generations?
I had an opportunity a couple of years ago to hear one of the great
authors who has written all these books about economics. He was talking
about the great implosion of the economy in 2008, 2009. His point was
that was going to cost future generations--not just this generation,
but maybe three generations of Americans were going to be affected by
that big great recession of our economy. It is the same issue tonight.
Our future environment is going to be impacted, not just for today,
but for future generations by what the next EPA Administrator does. It
is critical that we recognize the important need for clean air and
clean water now and take steps to be aggressive about it.
This is something that is important to our State because it is
affecting us economically. It is affecting us with water and ocean
acidification, challenging our seafood industry and our food chain, and
challenging us with wildfires. We want to make sure that we have an EPA
Administrator who is going to do their job.
In my opinion, Mr. Pruitt has ignored big polluters and discharge in
drinking water in Oklahoma. In my opinion, he has not been strong
enough with regards to the big oil and big mining companies who have
attempted to undermine what is EPA law. As attorney general, he tried
to undermine the laws that are already on the Federal books. It leaves
my colleagues and I questioning, How could he ever stand up for those
laws if he has spent so much time trying to undermine them?
He has helped organize strategies and discussions about how to
aggressively stop the EPA from doing its job. Some of these discussions
used the example of the Pebble Mine. The Pebble Mine is a mine that
companies are proposing in Alaska at the headwaters of the largest
sockeye salmon run in the world, one of the most important sockeye
salmon runs in the world. So as EPA Administrator, when he is supposed
to be protecting clean water, is he going to side with those mining
companies? He spent a whole strategy session with them trying to figure
out how to overrun EPA. Is he going to be the kind of person who is
going to help us stand up for clean water so we can have salmon on the
west coast? Or is he going to join with those who think that you can
degrade the environment and still preserve these incredible resources?
I know that people think Mr. Pruitt and his statements about climate
change are important. I agree because part of that stewardship on clean
air is basically implementing and carrying forward strategies to make
sure that polluters reduce pollution in our air and that we come up
with a plan to diversify energy sources to reduce that pollution. I
should say his job is not that, but it is clearly to call out what the
Supreme Court has said is implementation of the Clean Air Act.
My colleagues, I think, are failing to recognize that Mr. Pruitt's
hesitancy on this issue is really going to cause problems or challenges
for us here in the Senate. It is going to cause challenges for us to
move ahead when we are seeing so much impact.

I know my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, and I have asked the
GAO for an analysis of what climate change is costing us. What is the
impact of climate change costing us? Why did we ask for that letter
over a year ago? Because we are seeing devastating impacts in the
shellfish industry, in the timber industry, in various aspects of our
economy as it relates to that.

[[Page S1329]]

In the Tulsa World Mr. Pruitt said: ``Scientists continue to disagree
about the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the
actions of mankind.''
That is what he said in the newspaper in Oklahoma.
I know several of my colleagues and I have further discussed exactly
this issue, but the United States has made great strides to reduce
carbon dioxide, and we need to have someone who is going to be
aggressive about doing more work on this. The consequences of increased
carbon dioxide have been everything from extreme weather patterns to
impacts on water quality, which causes impacts to our salmon, to
drought conditions, which a lot of legislation--various committees have
been discussing exactly what to do about the drought situation in
Washington, Oregon and California. I am sure it is going to continue
into many other States. It is impacting even the chemistry of Puget
Sound--something I will get into in a minute with ocean acidification.
To have somebody who doesn't get how aggressive we have to be on
addressing these issues is very problematic. It is an economic issue.
I would like to say, as I mentioned earlier, it is about good
stewardship because it is about future generations and whether someone
did their job in leaving this place to the next generation, but it is
also about economic issues.
Mr. Pruitt failed to be accountable as attorney general in releasing
emails, and that is so much of the discussion today about his
nomination. During his confirmation hearing, he repeatedly failed to
answer questions. And he told Senators: Submit an open records request
to the attorney general's office--his own office. It is as if Mr.
Pruitt is taunting our colleagues, not answering the questions about
his policy, hoping that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
and this side of the aisle will support him, even though he will not
give us answers on his policies. And then he says: Well, if you want to
know, you can submit an open records request. We have; people have. We
want the answers, and a court today has said: Let's give people those
answers.
We don't have those answers today, yet my colleagues want to rush to
have his nomination pushed through when something as important as the
environment is at stake.
On average, Oklahoma State government agencies complied with their
open records request within 68 days. That was the average, yet Mr.
Pruitt, as attorney general, has taken over 2 years. A few weeks ago
when a lawsuit was filed against Mr. Pruitt on this very issue, the
suit requested that he respond to 9 open records requests, asking for
as many as 3,000 emails.
As I just said, yesterday, a judge said that he has to turn over
those records, those documents, and he has to do so by Tuesday. It is
not a long time to wait. It is not a long time to discuss the concerns
that our colleagues have with this position. In fact, I would be happy
to come back on Wednesday and make sure we have consideration then,
giving people time until Tuesday. But people are pushing us to vote for
this nomination tomorrow or, I should say today.
What do my colleagues not want to see in the Pruitt emails? What is
it that they don't want to know? Attorney General Pruitt has been part
of close to 30 anti-environmental legal actions. Is that what they
don't want to see?
I know one of my colleagues has said he is going to make polluters
pay. He is going to assure that these issues are implemented.
Scott Pruitt has sued the EPA 14 times. He fought the cross-state air
pollution rule. He fought the regional haze rule. He fought the clean
air standards for oil and gas production sites. He fought the clean
water rule. He fought the mercury rule twice, and he fought the Clean
Power Plan four times.
So are my colleagues interested in giving this job to someone who has
fought the EPA and tried to stop them from making sure that polluters
pay? This is what the responsibility of the Environmental Protection
Agency is, to make sure that we have good stewardship.
In one case, Attorney General Pruitt failed to pursue a Phillips 66
refinery in an Oklahoma City, which the EPA found was one of the worst
polluting refineries in the entire country. Phillips 66, in this case,
impacted groundwater. That was the pollution in this case. Yet Scott
Pruitt failed to enforce the environmental laws there.
As attorney general, Scott Pruitt has been absent in other cases.
There was a groundwater case and pollution by Halliburton. Where was
the attorney general in that case?
In another case, in Bethany, the city's water wells were impacted by
a toxic plume of chemicals that impacted access to safe drinking water.
This case is still going on. But the attorney general failed to step
in and protect those citizens.
So this is what we want to understand, given what Attorney General
Pruitt said in his testimony: Ask for requests. Get the emails. See the
positions.
That is what we have done. As we can see from his record, he knew
very well it took a long time, that he had every tool to make this a
very hard process for people to get the answers. Yet we are now within
days of having those answers. My colleagues want to go ahead and vote.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt was asked to identify
lawsuits he filed against private companies in Oklahoma for violation
of pollution laws. Despite these examples I just mentioned, Mr. Pruitt
could think of only one specific instance in which he filed a
settlement after his predecessor completed an investigation into how a
dozen or so poultry producers illegally disposed of animal waste. So
let's take a closer look at that case.
The poultry companies in the northeast corner of Oklahoma were not
properly disposing of 300,000 tons of animal waste per year. Attorney
General Pruitt's predecessor had sued the companies for damages caused
by pollution and forced the companies to change disposal practices. But
Mr. Pruitt in this case, rather than advocating for the judge to make a
ruling, negotiated an agreement with the company to do a study on the
appropriate levels of phosphorus in the Illinois River.
So while some might say ``Well, isn't that a good step?'' he let the
agreement expire that was already in place to reduce that waste and did
not seek a formal extension. He shut down the environmental unit that
helped start the lawsuit against those companies. This unit was in
charge of making sure that agricultural waste cleanup and millions of
dollars to clean up those toxic sites were in place. Yet he let that
expire.
So I have grave concerns about whether he is going to be aggressive
about these issues all across the United States. Is he going to work to
make sure these laws that are on the books already continue to be
enforced? Is he going to fight to make sure that clean air and clean
water--the rights of the citizens here in our country--are preserved
and preserved for future generations?
I noticed that in Oklahoma there was question 777, a ballot measure.
On that ballot measure was Oklahoma's right-to-farm statute that was
proposed by the Oklahoma Legislature. If the voters in Oklahoma
approved it, it would have created an amendment to the Oklahoma
Constitution prohibiting the legislature from enacting laws restricting
agricultural production unless laws were needed to advance a
``compelling State interest.''
I think this is a very interesting demonstration of how people are
trying to use a process, just like the House colleagues are sending
over regulatory reform bills. They are going to hide behind regulatory
reform when in reality they are trying to curtail clean water and clean
air rules.
Well, the people of Oklahoma were a little smarter than that. Right-
to-farm laws are not uncommon, and there are currently variations in
all 50 States. But many such statutes, including Oklahoma's current
law, protect farmers and ranchers from nuisance claims as long as they
operate in acceptable practices.
This question that was put on the ballot to Oklahomans went further
than the typical right-to-farm law; it would have amended their State
constitution. The State constitution holds a higher authority than
these State statutes. So if that initiative was enacted, it would have
guaranteed that

[[Page S1330]]

agriculture can engage in farming practices without interference from
the legislature, and it would even have prohibited the public from
suits. Can you imagine that? I know that that is what some of the
proponents of these issues want; they want to do whatever they want on
the land whether it impacts the neighbors or impacts clean air or clean
water. They just want to keep moving it forward.
So Mr. Pruitt was in support of question 777. He talked about the
``intrusive rules from government regulators'' that often ``fail to
achieve the stated health, safety and environmental goals.'' Well, we
know we want to have a balance. We can have jobs, we can have
agriculture, and we can have environmental stewardship. I think we, in
Washington, work very hard to achieve that.
Drought issues like we are experiencing in the Yakima Basin got
everybody to the table--farmers, Native Americans, fishermen,
everybody. Instead of trying to pass initiatives like this--which, by
the way, failed in Oklahoma--people said: We need to work together in
these challenging times of a changing climate and work on preserving
what is most important to all of us. They have done a good job in doing
that.
So what we are looking for is an Administrator who is going to help
in that process, who is going to continue to make sure we live up to
these laws that are on the books and help in the challenging times of
drought and environmental impact.

Of Attorney General Pruitt's 14 cases against EPA, 13 of those suits
were joined by the fossil fuel industry. The attorney general has been
known to send letters to Federal agencies that basically were identical
to the fossil fuel industry letters; that is, as attorney general, he
wasn't making his case, he was just making the case for the fossil fuel
industry.
The CEO of Continental Resources, a top oil producer in the United
States--their organizations basically were trying to push Mr. Pruitt
during his time as attorney general, instead of standing up for clean
air and clean water. And we want to know what he is going to do in this
new job--work with Members here in the Senate on continuing to
implement the law.
One of the best examples of what I would expect him to do is to
continue the good work of the Federal Government in protecting salmon.
Of particular importance, as I mentioned earlier, is the issue of
Pebble Mine. During his time as attorney general, Scott Pruitt, as I
said, planned the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil Fuels.
That is a pretty interesting task to take if you are the attorney
general of a State, the Summit on Federalism and the Future of Fossil
Fuels. That summit brought together energy executives with attorneys
general to strategize against what they thought was so-called EPA
overreach and how to defeat it.
One of the key examples they brought up was the Environmental
Protection Agency's efforts to protect Bristol Bay, AK, from a proposed
mine that is called Pebble Mine. Pebble Mine is a proposed large hard
rock mine, as I mentioned earlier, in the headwaters of Bristol Bay.
Each year nearly 40 million sockeye salmon return to Bristol Bay. In
total, Bristol Bay supports 29 species of fish, including all 5 North
American salmon species. That is why Bristol Bay is called one of the
greatest fisheries on Earth. Bristol Bay supports a $1.5 billion
sockeye salmon fishery, which provides 14,000 jobs throughout the
Pacific Northwest.
Even my colleague, the late Ted Stevens, was opposed to the Pebble
Mine. I think he knew the great resource and the importance of Bristol
Bay.
This fishery, and the people in that fishery, and the tribes of
Bristol Bay, petitioned the EPA to evaluate the impact of the proposed
Pebble Mine and what it could do to salmon.
In 2014, after years of research, EPA finalized a science-based
assessment of the Pebble Mine called the Bristol Bay Watershed
Assessment. This assessment found that Pebble Mine posed a direct
threat to Bristol Bay salmon.
I am not sure this is a picture of Bristol Bay salmon, but this is
definitely an iconic symbol of what we are talking about here tonight,
that thousands of jobs in our State rely on salmon, and the subsistence
culture of many Native Americans also rely on Bristol Bay salmon. That
is why so many people weighed in at meetings with EPA and agencies in
various parts of the Northwest to talk about this issue, because so
many jobs would be impacted. That mine would destroy up to 94 miles of
salmon spawning streams, devastate up to 5,350 acres of wetlands, and
create 10 billion tons of toxic mine waste.
So you can imagine my concern when the attorney general out of
Oklahoma decided he was going to take a very lenient attitude on animal
waste and hold the summit trying to basically figure out ways to
disrupt EPA's questioning and assertions about Bristol Bay. How far he
is going to go as EPA Administrator to basically have a negative impact
on our salmon economy?
He could have said: It was just a session, and I support EPA's
actions. But that is not the message we are receiving. The toxic mine
waste that would exist at Bristol Bay would contaminate massive amounts
of areas behind the second largest dam in the world, and that mine
waste would be there in perpetuity in Bristol Bay.
So the science was very clear. The Pebble Mine was in the wrong
place, and it was the wrong idea. Large mining companies have come to
that same conclusion. Just a few weeks ago, an analyst issued a report
that said Pebble Mine is ``not commercially viable.'' That is because
of the tremendous costs that are associated with it and the risks
associated with it.
After the EPA assessment found that salmon were at risk from the
Pebble Mine, I definitely want to make sure that Bristol Bay salmon are
protected forever. The EPA had the authority to basically use a section
of the Clean Water Act to make sure those Bristol Bay salmon were
protected. That is what I expect. That is what I expect after public
hearings, an open process, using the authority. Why would it be a good
idea to let a mine be located at the headwaters of one of the most
important salmon runs in the world? Why would we do that? Yet Mr.
Pruitt took time to join an effort to say: How can we overturn EPA's
efforts here?
I need an EPA Administrator who is going to stand up for our
environment in the Pacific Northwest and protect us on clean air and
clean water. It is critical that those individuals who were proposing
this mine continue to be thwarted.

While the EPA has been close to making sure there are permanent
protections for Bristol Bay, I am very concerned that this EPA
Administrator could start this process all over again. That is
something we can't afford. We cannot have an EPA Administrator who is
on the wrong side of the Pebble mine issue. They need to protect
Northwest salmon.
I would also like to talk about another threat to our environment, to
our fishing economy that is certainly happening today and why we need
an EPA Administrator not to be spending their time joining forces with
polluters, figuring out ways to avoid law, but figuring out ways to
implement the Clean Air Act that the Supreme Court says we must follow
through on.
Last year, Attorney General Pruitt stated that there is a
disagreement about whether human activity has had an impact on climate.
When he was pressed on this issue during his hearing, he continued to
question scientific facts. He said he believed climate change is
irrelevant to his role as EPA Administrator. Well, I disagree. Climate
change is not a future hypothetical issue. We are seeing it today, and
we are seeing it in our State.
Our fishermen want to continue the great legacy that we have in our
fishing traditions, and we are going to get to why this picture is
affected by what I am going to talk about next, but we want to continue
to have thriving Northwest fisheries. We want to continue to have a
healthy environment and food chain that is going to allow us to have a
robust fishery in the Northwest.
I think our fisheries can be cited as some of the best managed
fisheries in the entire world. That is how good we are at it. That is
how scientific we are at it. That is how collaborative we are at it.
That is how much hard work has been put into stewardship and managing
the resources and making sure the jobs still exists. I would match that
with any other part of the United States or this planet. The Northwest

[[Page S1331]]

fisheries are managed well, but they are being challenged. They are
being challenged by the fact that our climate is changing and that the
oceans absorb 25 percent of the carbon dioxide emissions, which
resulted basically in a changing of the chemistry in our waterways.
That is right; the oceans absorb 25 percent of carbon emissions. So
basically they become this sink for the emissions.
We have scientists who are out on the Olympic Peninsula studying this
very issue, not for us in the Northwest; they are studying it for the
entire United States. It is part of our National Laboratory system.
They are looking at this very important issue and the challenges we
face from it.
The fact that the oceans have been the sinks for that carbon has made
the rate of ocean acidification 10 times faster than anything we have
seen on Earth in the last 50 million years. In Puget Sound, that means
that ocean acidification has resulted in massive die-offs of young
oysters. Juvenile shellfish cannot survive in these corrosive waters,
and their shells actually dissolve.
So this economy for us is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, the
shellfish industry. A few years ago, we were successful in getting some
very minor--I think it was in the definitely thousands of dollars--to
help that industry figure out what was happening because the shells
weren't forming. We were able to see that ocean acidification was
having such a corrosive impact, we helped the industry figure out when
a better time for seeding was and to get to a point where those extreme
conditions weren't having their most devastating impact.
This die-off in 2005 caused a major plummeting of the shellfish
industry. An industry that employs over 3,000 people in the State of
Washington. I have met shellfish growers who are fourth-generation
shellfish growers in our State. So this way of life around Puget Sound
is important to us. You can go to probably a dozen restaurants here. I
am sure you could have gone across the street to Johnny's Half Shell
and ordered a product from Washington State. It would be one of the
premier products on the menu.
We have to fight to keep this industry. We have to make smart
decisions about our environment. We have to make good stewardship
decisions or those four generations of shellfish growers are not going
to be here anymore.
The pollution that is coming from carbon into our water is a big
deal. How big a deal is it? Well, it is a big enough deal to put on the
front page of the Seattle Times above the fold--and probably not just
once, probably several times. Why? Because we live and have a huge
population around the shores of something called Puget Sound.
Almost everyone, everyone there understands the importance of clean
water and a healthy environment to protect this maritime economy and to
make the right decisions moving forward.

We don't want to see what happened in 2005 and in 2006. We don't want
to see that. We want to see more of our shellfish actually able to
survive the seeding process, and we want to continue to be smart about
this. This is where the science question comes in.
If we have an EPA Administrator who doesn't believe this impact is
happening, if he is going to thwart the efforts to do the research and
the science, if he is going to spend more time trying to thwart these
laws than implement strategies to mitigate the impact of climate
change, we are not going to be successful economically. We need
technology like ocean acidification sensors.
Why were we successful at turning that situation around with the
shellfish industry and making sure? It is because we were able to
locate buoys in the water to give us data and information about these
warming temperatures, what problems it was causing, and come up with a
strategy to lessen the impact of acidification. They measured our
waters and how to modify growing practices. That is basically what they
did. If you are denying that climate change is even happening or that
it is having this impact and you are not planning for it, you are not
going to go out and help our growers strategize for the future.
They use that real-time information to increase the production from
the 20 percent of historical levels that it was to 70 percent, but
without that data in collaboration with places like NOAA, our shellfish
industry would have continued to just decline.
I need an EPA Administrator who is going to support monitoring; that
is going to understand this impact and do something about it.
Now why did I have the other picture of the salmon fisherman? Because
ocean acidification, as I mentioned, basically dissolves the shells of
important prey species we call pteropods, and they are the base of the
food chain. So not only am I just talking about the thousands of jobs
and millions of dollars associated with the shellfish industry, if you
have so much carbon sinking into our waters that you are destroying
this part of the food chain, it impacts the rest of the food chain. It
impacts all the way up the species, including salmon, herring,
mackerel, and other species. So this is why we have to have an EPA
Administrator who is going to follow science and be aggressive at
protecting these issues.
Last month, a new study published by scientists at the University of
Washington and NOAA found that even Dungeness crabs are at risk because
of these pteropods. I think that is what it says right there:
``Scientists fear ocean acidification will drive the collapse of
Alaska's iconic crab fishery.'' Thank you, thank you, Seattle Times.
That is what this is about, are we going to leave it up to the
newspapers of America to describe the scientific impact of what is
happening so we can force people whose job it is to be the stewards
here to do their jobs?
They should be the leaders, the people we put in this position. They
should be the ones who lead our Nation in protecting our most valuable
natural resources and making sure these pristine areas that we need for
our economy, for our quality of life, for our recreation are there, and
we need an EPA Administrator who is going to be aggressive about that.
So that is a little preview of this issue and what it looks like in
the State of Washington, but on this climate issue, as I mentioned, my
colleague from Maine and I actually joined forces probably 6 or 7 years
ago on this issue when the Senator from Maine was aggressive about
pushing legislation, asking Federal agencies to make sure they had a
response to climate change. I think the Senator from Maine probably saw
then how important this issue was, and it was legislation we actually
passed out of the Commerce Committee. I don't think it was actually
implemented into law, but it was a very good directive at saying to
agencies: This is going to impact us, and what is your mitigation plan.
We, in the Commerce Committee, held a hearing about this because what
we were finding was that a huge part of the U.S. economy--it was
definitely a high number, maybe as much as 50 percent--was driven by
States with coastal economies. A report was issued about how all of
these changes impacted sea level rising, impact in ocean acidification,
all of these things were going to impact these coastal economies and
thereby have a dramatic effect on the U.S. economy.
For example, just because it might not be front and center for
somebody from Oklahoma, it was going to become very front and center
for the U.S. economy if we didn't have a mitigation plan and did
something about it, and this report was a heralding call for the United
States to wake up to this issue.
I will never forget that hearing because the actress Sigourney Weaver
was there to testify. She was there to testify because she really
wanted to make the point about how important these issues were, as it
related to our waters and the impact.
You would think a brilliant actress like Sigourney Weaver would steal
the show. You would think her testimony before the Commerce Committee
would be it. That would be the news of the day, and that is what would
be written about, but it was actually a fisherman from a Southern
coastal State who stole the show because he spoke about how his job was
threatened, how fisheries were threatened, how, if we don't protect our
oceans and our air, we are going to have devastating effects on our
fisheries. This gentleman, whose family and livelihood was dependent

[[Page S1332]]

upon it, spoke in such an unbelievably meaningful way, he upstaged her.
So this isn't something we are coming at just because President Trump
has nominated Scott Pruitt; this is something we are going to fight for
every single day because it is important that our Nation have a
response to it.
My colleague from Maine was on it a long time ago. She said: Let's
make sure that every agency is going to have a plan for what we are
going to do about mitigation and impact as a result of climate.
As I mentioned just recently, in the last year or so, she and I
joined and sent a letter to GAO asking them to actually give us an
estimate across the whole Federal Government. What is going to be the
cost and impact of these changes to climate on our economy and the
Federal Government? This is a very important answer to have from the
GAO because my guess is that they are going to show that it costs a lot
of money. It is not surprising to me because I have seen it in my own
State, with catastrophic wildfires that have burned up hundreds of
thousands of acres of land at an unbelievable cost to the Federal
Government.
We are trying to come up with a better strategy for combatting these
wildfires. We can't get our House colleagues to engage in a serious
Energy bill process. Hopefully someday we will get them to understand
that the Senate in a bipartisan fashion did its homework and had
approval.
But these issues are not going away. Next summer there will be
another part of the United States that will be in the hot spot again,
and instead of making sure we are addressing that, some of our
colleagues just want to ignore it, just like they are ignoring Mr.
Pruitt's emails and his answers to these important questions.
That is the Northwest. Let's look at other parts of the country on
ocean acidification. Here is an example of a coral reef in the State of
Florida. In 2016, the University of Miami published a study which found
that Biscayne Bay coral reefs are already suffering the impacts of
ocean acidification. I would expect that coral reefs in Florida are
probably as important to their economy as salmon is to our economy. I
say that because I know people go to visit those coral reefs. Actually,
their reefs, according to economic analysis, are worth over $7.6
billion. That is what coral reefs are worth, apparently, due to their
importance in recreational and commercial fisheries and tourism.
Everybody wants to stand up for the fossil fuel industry because they
have jobs, but they forget the jobs that are related because of our
environment and how important it is to our economy.
In this particular picture, we are seeing the devastating impact and
changes of this coral reef in just a very short period of time.
This upper picture taken in 1976 shows a very vibrant coral reef. I
think this is an area where there has been a lot of discussion. I am
not exactly sure where Carysfort Reef is, but I think there has been a
lot of discussion here in the Senate about making sure people have
access to it or what ways the public can enjoy this particular site.
But when I look at this picture and I look at the devastating impact we
see on this coral reef, I question what our strategy is to preserve
what is an important recreational and commercial asset to Florida. What
is our strategy?
When I think about an EPA Administrator, are they going to act now in
balancing this issue and making sure that things like the Clean Power
Plan, which is saying to polluters: You must reduce pollution--are they
going to do that for the fishermen and recreationists and those who
believe in the beauty of these coral reefs in Florida? Just like the
Washingtonians in my State who go out and recreate on Puget Sound and
want to fish salmon and want to make sure our fishing economy stays
strong--are they going to have an Administrator who is going to do
this?
I can tell you that next summer I guarantee you there are going to be
unbelievable discussions about fishing in the Northwest. Why? Because
there is going to be an impact on salmon, and everybody is going to
want to fish--commercial fishermen, sports fishermen--everybody is
going to want to fish, and unless we have an EPA Administrator and a
NOAA Administrator and people who are implementing great conservation
strategies, we are not going to be successful because this pollution is
impacting our natural areas.
I can see here that it is impacting Florida's economy the same way.
During an interview, Scott Pruitt's predecessor, former Attorney
General Drew Edmondson, who served as Oklahoma attorney general from
1995 to 2001, stated:

``Under his tenure as attorney general, I don't think
environmental crimes have disappeared. It is just the filing
of cases alleging environmental crimes that has largely
disappeared.''

So I think that somebody knows something about this.
I have constituents who are also writing and communicating to me
about these issues, about whether they think Mr. Pruitt is the right
person to be EPA Administrator. It is not surprising that we have a
quote here from one of my constituents from Poulsbo, WA. I just talked
about the Puget Sound economy. I just talked about this economy. Puget
Sound is town after town of communities with fishermen who go out and
take advantage of that economy within our waters and also go as far
away as Alaska to fish. So I am not surprised that somebody from Kitsap
County has written to the Kitsap Sun and said: ``I voted for Trump, but
I certainly did not vote for a government takedown of my State's most
important asset, our water and our economy.''
It doesn't surprise me that that is what somebody in Kitsap County
said--not somebody in Poulsbo. You should just go look it up, people
who are listening. People listening, anybody listening tonight from
other parts of the United States, go look up Poulsbo, WA. It is a
beautiful community that is all about what Puget Sound can deliver for
us, and they will be the first part of our State to tell you what ocean
acidification is doing in Hood Canal to impact our fishermen. They will
be the first people. They know because this has been part of their
livelihood.
So I want to close tonight--this morning, I should say--by saying
that I hope our colleagues will at least consider the fact that we are
raising concerns, because we have great concerns about the economy of
the future, and that economy of the future depends on clean air and
clean water and an Administrator who is going to fight to implement the
law.
We need an Administrator who is going to be there not on the side of
the polluters but on the side of the people in dealing with some of the
thorniest environmental problems because of the change in climate this
country has seen. We want someone who is going to use that science and
information to help provide the stewardship for future generations. I
don't think that is Mr. Pruitt.
I ask my colleagues to help turn down his nomination and to move
forward--at least give us the chance to look at his emails so we know
exactly what we are dealing with and to make sure that our country is
going to continue to be committed to these men and women who work in
this resource economy that depends so much on clean water and air.
I thank the Presiding Officer, and I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. President.
There is a lot we don't know about Scott Pruitt. We know that
thousands of emails between this man and the industry that he is
supposed to be regulating as EPA Administrator have been suppressed by
him for years. We know that just yesterday a court found that
suppression of his emails unreasonable, an abject failure of his duties
under the law to disclose. Those ought to be alarm bells for the side
of the aisle that is forcing, jamming this nomination through.
He told us he couldn't get these emails released for more than 2
years, and the court ordered him to release the first chunk Tuesday,
just days from now; the second big chunk, 10

[[Page S1333]]

days from now. So clearly there has been some mischief here, when on
the one hand this office pretends that it can't get the emails out for
more than 2 years, and a court looks at the situation and says: No. You
make them available Tuesday. That is not a sign of good things.
No. 2, this is a guy who, as part of his political money operation--a
political money operation that is heavily funded by big fossil fuel
industry players about whose carbon emissions he will be making vital
decisions as EPA Administrator. So far, his relationship with them has
been to take their money and to be their lawyer. That is not a good
start, either, for an EPA Administrator.
Here is the other thing we don't know: We don't know about his dark
money operation. The Rule of Law Defense Fund--the whole reason you set
up something like that is to hide the source of money that you use in
politics. That is why the entity exists. It is to take groups like this
and launder their identities right off of them so that, when money
shows up, for instance, at the Republican Attorneys General
Association, it is not attached to Devon Energy; it is not attached to
ExxonMobil; it is not attached to Murray Energy; it is not attached to
the Koch brothers or to their front groups--Freedom Partners and
Americans for Prosperity--it is not attached to the company whose
billionaire president was his finance chairman for his campaign,
Continental Resources; it is not attached to the Southern Company and
to other big energy companies. It just comes out of the Rule of Law
Defense Fund. The identity of the donor has been scrubbed away. It is
an identity laundering machine.

These are the relationships that are forged when you are asking
people for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and $1 million a year was
the budget for the Rule of Law Defense Fund. If you are asking for that
kind of money from these people, it is elementary that the Senate
should know about that, but our colleagues on the other side of the
aisle have completely stonewalled this--zero inquiry into the dark
money operation that this individual was allowed.
Why is that? That is pretty unusual. Why were we not allowed to get
these emails? Why were we told: Oh, you will have to line up behind
everybody else in this FOIA line that I have maintained for 2 years.
That was an adequate answer to the majority on the EPW Committee, but
the judge who took a look at that same situation said: No, you get them
Tuesday. If the chairman had said: No, you get them Tuesday, we
wouldn't be having this problem. We would have seen them weeks and
weeks and weeks ago.
All of the pressure from the majority on this nominee has been to
cover up this stuff. Don't let it in. Nothing to see here, folks. Move
along. Move along.
That is not right. That is not the way the Senate should behave. That
is not consistent with our advice and consent responsibilities, and,
frankly, it sets up Republican Senators. If and when it ultimately does
come out that there is significant mischief exposed in those emails or
if there are significant conflicts of interest created by that dark
money operation, the Senate does not look great for having used its
energy and effort in this nomination to cover that stuff up.
There is a doctrine called willful blindness, which is the wrongful
intention to keep oneself deliberately unaware of something. It is a
culpable state of mind in criminal and civil law. That is the state of
mind that is being maintained by the majority with respect to this
individual, and one has to wonder why. Why are there these big things
that we don't know about Scott Pruitt?
It is not that we didn't ask. It is that we got told by the majority:
Run along; it doesn't matter. You will have no support from us. We are
going to clear this guy anyway. It doesn't matter if his answers to you
make no sense. It doesn't matter if his answers aren't truthful. It
doesn't matter if his answers put you at the end of a long FOIA line
when this is the Senate's advice and consent process. None of that
matters.
Just by one point of evaluation, the difference is that, when the
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works looked at this, they
said: Run along; nothing here. We are not interested. Don't show us a
single email.
And the judge looking at it said to get them out Tuesday--a local
State judge.
Since when is the double standard in which Senators are deprived of
seeing highly relevant evidence? What is being covered up and why? Who
is pulling the strings around here so that these obvious questions
don't get answered when you put it side by side with a State court
proceeding that asks the same question and the questions get answered
like that. Something is rotten in Denmark.
It hasn't fooled Rhode Islanders. My correspondence is running about
50 to 1 against Scott Pruitt. Over 1,000 Rhode Islanders have written
in against him. Let me just read a couple of their communications with
me.
This is from Amanda Tarzwell:

As a member of the Committee on Environment and Public
Works, I urge you to do all you can--

``All you can,'' she says--

to block Mr. Pruitt's nomination as the head of the EPA. My
grandfather, Clarence Tarzwell, worked for the EPA and opened
the EPA lab in Narragansett.

Narragansett is a Rhode Island town.

It is located on Tarzwell Drive in his honor. He is now
deceased, but I believe in the work he did and the necessity
to protect our environment and continue to work on climate
change. Please do everything you can to urge your fellow
committee members on both sides of the aisle to do the same.
Thank you.

On the next, her name is right in the letter. So I will read it:

I am a 23-year-old woman with a bachelor of science degree
in wildlife and conservation biology from the University of
Rhode Island.
I am writing to respectfully demand you vote ``no'' on the
approval of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. It is extremely clear that
Pruitt is the WRONG choice to head the EPA.
As someone with an extensive education in environmental
sciences, conservation, wildlife and plant biology,
chemistry, and physics, I am deeply concerned with Pruitt's
capabilities. A climate change skeptic, with no formal
science-based education, Pruitt has zero concept of what it
takes to make informed decisions about the current and future
stakes of our environment.
Rhode Island is leading the country in many environmental
fields, such as renewable energy, environmental protection,
and sustainable agriculture and aquaculture. We cannot allow
a climate change skeptic, with a love affair with fossil
fuels, to make important decisions regarding our precious
environment and those working hard to protect it.
I urge you to vote no on the approval of Scott Pruitt for
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Catherine Hoyt wrote in:

I have a special concern for the upcoming vote on the EPA
Director, Scott Pruitt. I know you are on the Committee for
Environment and Public Works so you are more informed than
most people--

Although, as I just explained, we are deliberately underinformed in
some very telling ways--

and I trust that you are unlikely to vote contrary to the
interests of our beautiful and environmentally unique coastal
State.
Among other things I do, I am a sailing instructor in
Edgewood, in Cranston.

Cranston is another one of our municipalities.

I have been sailing in the Upper Bay for about 10 years.
Even in that amount of time, the bay is noticeably cleaner.
The water is clearer, and there are more birds and fish and
crabs and other creatures that signify, through my direct
experience, that the environment is healthier in the Upper
Bay.
My anecdotal evidence is also confirmed by scientific
reports from URI--

The University of Rhode Island--

over the summer that Narragansett Bay is cleaner now than it
has been in 150 years. Wonderful. I would be very sorry to
see that trend reverse. I am old enough to remember what it
was like before the EPA, and I do not want to go back to
smog-filled skies, polluted waters, and tragedies like Love
Canal and Woburn's poisoned well water.
I am sure that, if it were not for the EPA and groups like
Save the Bay--which is a local environmental organization--
that the Upper Bay would have become more toxic and polluted
due to industrial use, sewage, rainwater runoff, pesticides,
and road salt. What is more, I believe that the EPA
regulations have been good for business. Because pollution
is, ultimately, wasteful and counterproductive, and clean
businesses often are efficient and, therefore, more
successful businesses. Look at the careful reutilization of
materials by companies like Apple, who are investing in the
future and their profitability by going further than
required. They are nearly cash neutral at this point.

Some of that is through buying carbon credit, but, clearly, they are
not

[[Page S1334]]

afraid of being environmentally responsible.

As a concerned citizen of Rhode Island and America,
regarding President Trump's nomination for head of the
Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, I believe
deeply that this is not the person for the job, that there is
nothing in his background that suggests he has any interest
in protecting American citizens and their health and
environment from harm. I have never written any of my
congressional Representatives in my many, many years on this
planet until today.
I remember the air quality in Rhode Island in the late
sixties and through the seventies-plus. Those visible brown
clouds, especially in the summer, as pollution and smog
drifted from New York or Connecticut towards Rhode Island. I
remember the pollution in our beautiful Narragansett Bay. I
see the changes ocean rise has already effected.
Climate change is real, and it is scientifically accepted
across the world. I am deeply troubled by Mr. Pruitt's
statements and legal actions he has instigated against this
Agency. I am asking you to take a stand for the health of the
citizens of Rhode Island and the American people. Please vote
no when the votes are called for Mr. Scott Pruitt's
nomination.

Here is the last one I will read:

As a retired Federal scientist, meteorologist, I am deeply
concerned that the EPA continue to be an agency that makes
decisions about our environment that are based on the best
science available.
Scott Pruitt has a record of supporting policies that are
pro-business at the expense of the environment despite what
the science shows. How can he possibly be considered as the
voice that will fight for clean air and clean water? Despite
excellent progress over my lifetime, pollution continues to
be a major problem for the air we breathe and the water that
sustains us.
Please join the voices on the Hill that block the
appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. Thank you.

I wish we could block the appointment of Scott Pruitt as EPA
Administrator. It is really rare to see a nominee for a Federal agency
who is as unqualified--indeed, as disqualified by conflict of
interest--as this individual. As for the idea that he is being jammed
through just as thousands of emails are going to be released about
him--between him and his big funders and the groups that they funded
him through--something is wrong. This is not the way the Senate should
behave.
The people on that side--in taking all of this mystery, all of this
mischief, all of the emails, all of the dark money--who are being asked
to vote are being told: Don't even look at that.
I can promise you that if the shoe were on the other foot,
Republicans would be clamoring for emails.
This is a grim day for this Chamber--what we are doing here, knowing
of this man's record, knowing of his record of shutting down the
environmental agency in his home State while attacking the
environmental agency of the Federal Government while pretending that
his concern is federalism; right? He has pretended that he thinks that
the enforcement responsibility shouldn't be at the Federal level, that
it should be down at the State level. But if that were even remotely
sincere, he wouldn't have shut down his own office's environmental
enforcement unit as the attorney general of Oklahoma.
The common thread here is that he doesn't want any environmental
enforcement at the Federal level and he doesn't want any environmental
enforcement at the State level. He shut down the unit. He zeroed out
the budget. He gave us a bunch of soft soap about how actually he moved
the environmental unit into something called a federalism unit. But if
you look at his own website for the federalism unit, the word
``environmentalism'' or ``environment'' doesn't appear. It is news that
that is his environmental enforcement section, because it doesn't say
so on his own website. That was an invention just for the hearing.

When you look at his own budget, the amount he budgets for
environmental enforcement disappears. It has gone to zero. When you
look at the Environmental Enforcement Task Force that his office's
environmental unit had participated in under the previous attorney
general, Drew Edmondson, that has disappeared too. He has gotten rid of
every element of environmental enforcement that he controlled at the
State level, while taking money from all of the big polluters, while
having the CEO of Continental Resources--a billionaire--as his
fundraising chair.
He took money from the fossil fuel industry through all of these
different entities--through his leadership PAC, Liberty 2.0; through
his campaign, Pruitt for Attorney General; through his super PAC,
Oklahoma Strong PAC--sorry, that is his leadership PAC, and Liberty 2.0
is his super PAC--through the Rule of Law Defense Fund, which is his
dark money operation. By the way, whatever the attorney general needs
is a dark money operation. Really? Through the Republican Attorneys
General Association, which he raised money for, and who knows what
else.
This guy is fully fossil fuel funded. And in his entire career, he
has dedicated himself to getting rid of and attacking environmental
enforcement wherever he finds it--at the State or Federal level. You
can't beat shutting down the environmental unit in your own office.
So that is what we are looking at. When you look at that combination
and throw in the secrecy about the dark money operation and this mad
rush to get this guy through before the week is out in which these
emails come out, it stinks.
What we are doing here is a deliberate act of sabotage of the orderly
and honest operation of an agency of our government. We are putting in
a person who can demonstrably be shown to be incapable of and
disqualified for those duties. I think that is actually not a bug in
this program; that is the feature. That is the feature because these
same forces that have been behind Scott Pruitt all his life, as he has
fought all environmental enforcement--State and Federal--are awfully
powerful in this Chamber as well, and they are obviously calling the
shots at the White House, where a nominee like this would come from.
We are in the process of deliberately sabotaging the orderly and
honest operation of an agency of the U.S. Government, not at the behest
of a foreign power but after a special interest--the biggest and, in my
view, the foulest special interest in the world today--the fossil fuel
industry.
The fossil fuel industry has become so big and so powerful and so
mercenary that it has decided its best investment is no longer in oil
fields or coal seams or fossil fuel processing plants, but in acquiring
a controlling interest in the Government of the United States. And it
turns out we come pretty cheap.
According to the International Monetary Fund, we give the fossil fuel
industry a subsidy every year in the United States alone of $700
billion. That is a more valuable prize than any drilling rights or any
mining lease. To protect it--to protect $700 billion a year--acquiring
a controlling interest in the U.S. Government is a bargain. One fossil
fuel front group spent $750 million in the last election. That is a 1-
to-1,000 payback--a 1,000 times ROI--each year that they keep the $700
billion subsidy if they keep plowing $700 million a year into politics
to produce results like this nominee for EPA.
You get benefits once you have acquired that controlling interest.
Only one Republican has publicly taken a stand against Scott Pruitt,
the most compromised and corrupted nominee in memory, with huge holes
of secrecy still around his relationship with the industry he is
supposed to regulate--nobody else, just the one. No Senators from
States whose big cities are flooded by rising seas on sunny days, no
Senator from States whose historic native villages are washing into the
sea, no Senators from States who are losing ancient forests to pine
beetles and wildfires, nor from States whose farmers see unprecedented
extremes of flood and drought, and whose home State universities assign
responsibility for those new extremes to climate change caused by
carbon emissions from companies like these--none from the States whose
fisheries are imperiled by warming and acidifying seas--no one. There
is just that one Senator. How well this industry is succeeding.
This EPA nominee may be compromised and corrupted, but he is
compromised and corrupted by the fossil fuel industry. So there is no
talking about it on that side. Everybody just studies the ceiling tiles
when the subject comes up. Nobody will help us find out about the
thousands of stonewalled emails with his fossil fuel industry patrons.
Nobody will help us inquire into the nominee's fossil-fuel-funded dark
money operation. Nobody challenges

[[Page S1335]]

his nonsense answers in the confirmation process. He answered, he
answered; let's move along, let's move along.

The dark hand of the fossil fuel industry is all over this
nomination. This is the wolf being deliberately inserted into the lamb
fold. It is from the fossil fuel money that fueled his politics--
unknown fully because we refuse to shine the Senate's light into his
dark money operation--to the thousands of emails between him and his
fossil fuel industry patrons, only a fraction of which have been
brought to light throughout our confirmation process, and which were
only uncorked after his office was sued--not because of any effort on
the other side in the confirmation process--to the fossil fuel front
groups that have come out supporting this nominee and are spending
millions to push him through. Think about that. These groups are
funding ad campaigns to push this guy through. Obviously, they have
expectations about how well they are going to be treated by him.
Through all of that, the sting of this industry's influence is
profound.
Just reflect on that last point. A dark money operation is being
cranked up by polluters to ram the EPA nominee through.
Here is a headline:

Energy executives, secretive nonprofit raise money to back
Pruitt.
New group warns that EPA nominee's confirmation ``is not a
certainty'' and millions of dollars are needed for the fight.

There would have been a time when it would have been disqualifying
when polluters were raising millions of dollars needed for a fight to
ram through an EPA nominee. This is conflict of interest in plain day,
but it is a conflict of interest with the right folks around here, I
guess, and so we don't consider it conflict of interest any longer.
Whom do you suppose most of the dark money is? Well, we don't know,
because it is dark money. But who is it usually? Well, the fossil fuel
industry, the Koch brothers, and their front groups. And what do you
suppose they want to spend millions of dollars for? What could be
better for them, the biggest polluters on the planet, than a little
minion to run the EPA as Every Polluter's Ally.''
In any sane world, the fact that all this dark and dirty money is
being spent to ram through an EPA nominee would be disqualifying all by
itself--but not here, not now, not in a Congress that is so compliant
to the fossil fuel industry that this alarm bell doesn't even register.
Fossil fuel front groups sent a joint letter of support for their
little minion Pruitt. Here is the letter with all of these various
groups who I think are united in their dependence on fossil fuel money.
Here is the legendary Heartland Institute. They are that classy group
that compared climate scientists to the Unibomber. That has been their
contribution to the discussion about climate change.
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Americans For Tax Reform, groups
from the State Policy Network--why don't these folks turn up somewhere
else? They turn up in the research of academics who are actually
studying the climate denial operation--because it is an operation. You
can follow the money from the fossil fuel industry out into an array of
front groups--front groups by the dozen--whose whole purpose in life is
to make them look like they are not fossil fuel industry front groups.
So they have names like the Heartland Institute or the George C.
Marshall Institute, which, by the way, has nothing to do with George C.
Marshall or his family. They just took the name because everybody knows
what a respected individual George C. Marshall was. They just took the
name and went to work phonying up the climate change debate under the
name of George C. Marshall.
That is a pretty shameful act when you think what George C. Marshall
did for this country, but these are not people for whom shame has much
effect.
If you look at Dr. Brulle's analysis--he is one of the academics who
looks at this array of front groups that are fossil fuel funded--this
group of people, of entities that signed the letter for this guy--they
show up here too--small world.
Well, I wonder whom they thought that letter would convince? I don't
think they expected it would convince many Democrats. Many of us on the
Democratic side have gone to the floor of the Senate to call out these
fossil-fuel-funded, dark-money-driven front groups, as the fossil-fuel-
funded, dark-money front groups that they are.
So I don't think Democrats are very plausible targets for that
letter. So why the letter? Well, my view is that this was done because
everyone in this building knows that the Koch brothers' political
operation is behind all of these groups--many wiggly tentacles of the
same fossil fuel polluter Hydra. Behind this letter is the same Koch
brothers political operation that warned Republicans of the political
peril--not my word, their word--that Republicans would be in if they
crossed this industry, of ``how severely disadvantaged''--another quote
from the industry books--``they would be if they dared to do anything
on climate change.''
That is what this letter is. It is a signal. It is the political
mailed fist of the Koch brothers in a front-group glove giving its
marching orders. In any sane and normal world, this letter by itself
from all these polluter front groups would be disqualifying, but it
appears this body will obediently turn the Environmental Protection
Agency of our government over to the minion of the polluters to join an
administration dead-set to destroy science with politics. It is like
everyone on the other side has been sworn to secrecy while this happens
in plain view.
This is a heartbreaking speech for me. I perhaps need to start with a
little personal background to explain.
Last year, we commemorated the 75th anniversary of the Pearl Harbor
attack. After Pearl Harbor was attacked, boys across America rushed to
sign up for the service of their country. My father and my uncle were
two of those boys. Both became pilots in the Pacific theater. My dad
was a Marine Corps dive bomber pilot; my uncle was a carrier-based Navy
fighter pilot. My uncle was killed over the Philippines. Actually, he
was under John McCain's grandfather's command--small world--but I doubt
that Admiral McCain knew who Ensign Whitehouse was.
My father came home from the war, and he served our country all his
life, first as a CIA officer and then as a decorated career diplomat. I
believe he won every award the State Department has to offer, and he
served in difficult, challenging, poor, and war-torn countries his
whole life. At the end, he came out of retirement to set up Special
Operations Command in the Pentagon for President Ronald Reagan.
I was raised in that life. We were often in dangerous and war-torn
places, and we were surrounded by American families who faced the
discomforts, the diseases, and the dangers of those far-away postings
because to them something mattered. Something mattered to take your
family to a place where, if your child was sick, there was no decent
hospital. Something mattered to take your family to a place that if
your child was bit by a dog, there was a good chance the dog was rabid.
Something mattered to take your family to places where the electricity
wasn't reliable, the water wasn't clean, the people weren't friendly,
and diseases abounded.
These folks didn't talk about it a lot. Today, a lot of people wear
their patriotism on their sleeve. It was not really a topic of
conversation, but it was a thread through their lives that showed that
in their choices something mattered. They didn't wear their patriotism
on their sleeves; they lived it.
The American Government that they served and that my uncle died
serving was, to them, an ideal. Did America sometimes fall short of
that ideal? Sure. But I will tell you what: Every other country in the
world knew the difference between America and everybody else. We stood
out for what we stood for. Across our agencies of government, for
decades, many Americans have worked quietly and honorably to advance
that American ideal.
At the heart of that ideal is a duty, and the duty is to put country
first, to put the American people first, even before your own
families's comfort and safety. That honor and that duty running through
the lives and service of millions of public servants are the core
heartstrings of American democracy.
Into that government, this Trump administration has nominated as
Administrator of the EPA, a tool of the

[[Page S1336]]

fossil fuel industry, a man who demonstrably will not take his
government responsibilities seriously because he never has. He has
never taken EPA's responsibility seriously. He has done nothing but sue
them. He has never taken his State's environmental responsibility
seriously. He has shut down the enforcement arm that his office had. He
will represent with the biggest conflict of interest in history a
polluting industry whose regulation is actually now the EPA's primary
public duty. This isn't some fringe question of conflict of interest
about some question that may emerge. This is the biggest stinking
conflict of interest I think we have ever seen in this body about the
issue that is at the center of the Environmental Protection Agency's
responsibilities. With the most important task before the EPA being to
control carbon emissions before we push this planet over the climate
cliff, the industry in question will now rule the regulator.
Well, this hits home. I have fishermen in Rhode Island who need
honest environmental policy to protect our seas. ``It is not my
grandfather's ocean,'' they have told me. ``Things are getting weird
out there,'' people who have fished since childhood have told me.
Moreover, Rhode Island is a downwind State from the midwestern smoke
stacks and a downstream State from out-of-state water pollution. Rhode
Island needs a strong EPA to enforce clean air and clean water laws
from harm starting outside our boundaries. My attorney general has not
shut down his environmental unit, and my department of environmental
management is doing our best to keep Rhode Island clean and livable.
But they can't do much about out-of-state polluters. That is where the
EPA comes in. For a man who so plainly disbelieves in and deprecates
the EPA's mission, it is an alarming picture for Rhode Island.

We are a coastal State, and a small one. We don't have a lot to give
back to rising seas. I have to say, I am sick of having to comfort
people whose homes have been washed away into the sea.
This is a picture I took not too long ago. Colleagues who have been
here for a while might remember this individual. He was the Governor at
the time, but he was my predecessor in my seat in the Senate, Lincoln
Chafee. His father served here with enormous distinction for many, many
years and was actually a Republican chairman of the Environmental and
Public Works Committee who cared about the environment. He was an
environmental Republican leader.
These are houses that have washed into the sea as the result of a
storm. Sea level rise has raised the level of the ocean so that storms
throw their water farther in, and they take little houses like these
that have been beachfront houses for many years and they just pull them
into the ocean.
I spoke to the lady who I think owned that house. She was, I would
say, in her seventies. She had childhood memories of that house. It had
been her grandparents', and she would come to visit as a little girl.
What she remembers as a little girl is that she would come out of that
house, and in front of the house was a little lawn big enough to put up
a net and play volleyball or badminton. Across from their lawn was a
little road, just a sand-and-gravel road, but it allowed cars to come
down and park near the beach. On the other side of the road was a
little parking area where the cars could pull in. Beyond the lawn and
the road and the parking area was the beach. Her memories of the beach
were of sunny days with the sun beating down on the sand, and she would
get across the lawn and across the road and across the parking lot, and
then she would just have to scamper as fast as she could on her little
feet across the hot sand. She described to me remembering what a long
run that felt like for her to rush down to the ocean where she could
put her feet into the cool Atlantic waters and swim. That beach, that
parking area, that road, that lawn, and now her house are all gone.
These are the things that are happening in my State that the
Republicans in this building could not care less about--could not care
less about.
The math is obvious: When you add heat into the atmosphere, the ocean
absorbs the heat. Indeed, the ocean has absorbed almost all of the heat
of climate change. God bless the oceans because if it weren't for them,
we wouldn't be worried about hitting 2 degrees' increase in
temperature. We would be worried about hitting 30 degrees' increase in
global temperature. Because of all the heat that has been piled up, it
has gone into the oceans 93.4 percent. That is like setting off more
than two Hiroshima nuclear bombs in the ocean every second. Every
second.
Think of the heat of a nuclear explosion of the level that destroyed
Hiroshima. Think of the--whatever it would be--terajoule of heat energy
that gets set off by a nuclear explosion. Our oceans are absorbing
heat. If we measure over the last 20 years how much heat they have
absorbed, they are absorbing heat at the rate of multiple Hiroshima
nuclear explosions happening in the ocean every second for 20 years.
We wonder why Senator Cantwell was talking about strange things going
on in the oceans. We wonder why my fishermen are saying it is getting
weird out there. But when all that heat goes into the oceans, there is
a law called the law of thermal expansion. That is not the kind of law
we debate around here. That is one of nature's laws. That is one of
God's laws. That is one of the laws of physics and chemistry that we so
ignore around here because we are paying attention to the laws of
politics and the ``golden rule'': Who has the gold, rules.
But these are laws that we don't get to repeal or amend. What they
are doing is swelling the seas with that heat. On top of that, in comes
the water from melting glaciers and there is your sea level rise, 10
inches of sea level rise that we have measured at Naval Station
Newport, to the point where we face scenes like this: a man in a kayak
going down in front of the Seamen's Church Institute in Newport, RI.
This is not water in the ordinary course. This is a place where
tourists walk. That is a storefront with water coming through the
doorway. This was the storm surge, the tide, that came in with Sandy--
which missed us, by the way.
We have a Coastal Resources Management Council that defends our
shores, and our University of Rhode Island and Coastal Resources
Management Council work together to see what is coming. They have
developed new computer tools to determine which houses are going to be
lost in what kind of storms, how often this scene is going to have to
repeat itself in Rhode Island. We are anticipating 9 feet of sea level
rise by the end of this century.
My colleagues may think that is funny, that this is all sort of an
amusing hoax we can talk about, but any State whose coasts are
threatened with 9 feet of sea level rise, any representative of that
State has a responsibility to come here and fight to try to defend that
State.
When the adversary is the big special interests that is causing that
and that has mounted the vast campaign of lies I talked about earlier
to try to cover it--it is $700 billion in subsidies every year--then
that is an adversary worth going after because that is a dirty and
wrongful adversary.
When their representative is going to run the EPA, that is a
disgusting state of affairs. If Rhode Island had to suffer this to save
our country for some great goal, if Rhode Islanders had to go off to
war again like my father and uncle and Rhode Islanders have since the
first battles in Portsmouth, RI, the Revolutionary War, we would saddle
up--sign us up--to take on whatever we need to defend this great
country, but don't ask us to take a hit like this to protect a big
special interest.
The arrogance and the greed of the fossil fuel industry and the dirty
things it is willing to do to advance its interests knows no bounds. It
lobbies Congress mercilessly against any action on climate change, and
it has for years.
It runs a massive political electioneering operation of dark money
and false attacks to prevent any action on climate change, and it has
for years. It operates that giant array of front groups, a multi-
tentacled, science-denial apparatus to put out streams of calculated
misinformation. It does this all to protect what that International
Monetary Fund report identified as a $700 billion annual subsidy.
What would big corporations do to protect $700 billion? Well, we are
finding out. For years, the fossil fuel industry has been deliberately
sabotaging

[[Page S1337]]

the honest and orderly operation of the legislative branch of America's
government to protect its subsidy. With this appointment, it would be
able to corrupt and sabotage the EPA.
I use the word ``corrupt'' because this is indeed the very definition
of corruption in government. This is government corruption in plain
view. In the Supreme Court decision Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of
Commerce, here is how the U.S. Supreme Court described corruption. The
Court described it as ``the corrosive and distorting effects of immense
aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the
corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's
support for the corporation's political ideas.''
Back we go to this network of false front operations, established by
immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of a
corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public
support for the corporation's ideas.
We got some interesting polling recently. The George Mason University
went out recently and conducted a poll of Trump voters. What did Trump
voters think? It turns out that more than 6 in 10 Trump voters support
taxing and/or regulating the pollution that causes global warming. In
general, Trump voters were asked: Which of these two approaches to
reducing the pollution that causes global warming do you prefer? Well,
16 percent said: I don't know; 21 percent said: Do nothing; but 13
percent of Trump voters said: Tax pollution; 18 percent said: Regulate
pollution; and 31 percent said: Tax pollution and regulate pollution.
That adds up to more than 6 out of 10 Trump voters thinking that the
pollution that causes climate change should be taxed or should be
regulated or should be taxed and regulated.
When you go back to the Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce
definition of corruption and look at the section that says that the
policies pushed by the massive aggregations of wealth accumulated with
the help of the corporate form want to go one way and the public wants
to go another way and the corporate powers' views have little or no
correlation to the public support for the corporation's political
ideas, well, heck, we know Democrats support doing stuff about climate
change.
It turns out Trump voters do too. The public is actually happy to get
something done. It is this mess that is stopping us. It is groups that
spend $700 million in a single election to influence Congress that is
the problem, not the American public.
Teddy Roosevelt described corruption this way. He described
corruption as a sinister alliance between crooked politics and crooked
business, which he said has done more than anything else for the
corruption of American life against the genuine rule of the people
themselves.

If you look at the influence of Big Business--particularly the fossil
fuel business--it has been something else around here. I was elected in
2006. I was sworn in, in the Senate, in 2007. When I was first here in
those early years, there was a Republican climate bill floating around
the Senate virtually all the time.
My recollection is that there were five Republican cosponsored
climate bills during my time there. Susan Collins did a climate bill
with Senator Cantwell; Senator John Warner of Virginia, Republican, did
a bill with Senator Lieberman; Senator Graham worked on a bill with
Senator Kerry; Senator Lamar Alexander had a bill of his own; and
Senator McCain supported climate legislation and ran for President of
the United States on a strong climate change platform. And then came
2010. Then came a decision called Citizens United, which the fossil
fuel industry asked for, expected, and immediately acted on when it
came out, and it said to the big special interests: Go for it, boys;
spend all you want in politics. We five Republican appointees to the
Supreme Court are going to make the comically false finding that
nothing you can do with unlimited money could possibly ever corrupt
American democracy or could possibly even be seen as corrupting by the
American public.
Of course, that is such hogwash that right now the Supreme Court is
viewed by people who have been polled on this question as not likely to
give a human being a fair shake against a corporation.
If I remember correctly, the numbers were 54 to 6. In a polling group
of 100, 6 Americans believe they could get a fair shot in the Supreme
Court against corporations and 54 believed they could not get, as human
beings, a fair shot in the U.S. Supreme Court against a big
corporation, but with the big corporations at the Supreme Court, the
fix was in--not a great place for the Court to be when by 9-to-1
American human beings think they can't get a fair shot in front of that
Court against a corporation.
They did deliver, and they delivered Citizens United and opened the
floodgates. The next thing out there was groups like Americans for
Prosperity, the front group for the Koch brothers, Donors Trust, which
launders away the identity of big corporations like ExxonMobil, and all
of these other front groups we looked at earlier, and they are spending
immense amounts of money. The result is, if there was a heartbeat of
activity on climate change with Republicans before Citizens United, it
has been a flat line since. That has been the story behind this.
Not only has dark money poisoned our conversation about climate
change, this guy actually ran his own dark money operation. His Rule of
Law Defense Fund, a 501(c)4 organization that does not disclose its
donors have been linked to the Koch brothers, who run one of the
biggest polluting operations in the country, but we don't really know.
We don't really know. It has been kept absolutely quiet.
There is a black hole of secrecy around this nominee's dark money
operation; whom he raised it from, what the quid pro quo was, what he
did with it. Not allowed to know. Move along. Move along. It doesn't
matter.
This is a test. This is a test of the Senate. Will this nominee ever
tell us exactly what his relationship with the fossil fuel industry is?
Will we get these emails in time to make an informed decision before
his nomination is rammed through one step ahead of the emails that the
judge said had to be released?
I can't get over the fact that this guy covered up the emails for
750-plus days for more than 2 years and a judge said: No, get them out
Tuesday. And they are going to get them out Tuesday. The second chunk,
you have 10 days to get them out. He sat there in our committee and
acted as if this was some huge terrible task that he couldn't possibly
get done; that with 2 years to do it, he couldn't get a single email
out. By the time of our hearing, zero of those thousands of emails had
come out. A judge took a look the same situation and said: Do it
Tuesday. And they are doing it.
We have been so deliberately stonewalled, and it has been so
painfully and plainly made clear by what the judge has ordered. We are
not passing this test of how a Senate should act.
President-Elect Trump promised to restore genuine rule of the people
themselves. Remember, Teddy Roosevelt's quote that the sinister
alliance between crooked politics and crooked business has done more
than anything else for the corruption of American life against the
genuine rule of the people themselves. President Trump promised to
restore genuine rule to people and themselves, and yet it is looking
more and more like shadowy and industry-funded groups will really run
our government.
This is a test also for the rest of corporate America. A lot of
corporate America has good climate policy. Most of corporate America
has good climate policy, but when are they going to stand up about an
EPA Administrator who is the minion of the fossil fuel industry? What
will Coca-Cola say to the Georgia Senators? What will Walmart ask of
its Arkansas Senators? What will VF Corporation urge its North Carolina
Senators to do? How will Rio Tinto advise its Senators from Arizona?
All these companies have taken important stands on global warming. Why
not now?

Let's talk about the due diligence that a nomination like this should
get, particularly the due diligence about climate change that the
present urgency demands. I wondered what due diligence my colleagues
have done to

[[Page S1338]]

assess the reality of climate change before making this fateful and
foul vote. The fossil fuel fox is on its way to the henhouse now, and I
challenge the colleagues who will have put him there: Have you gone to
your home State university for a briefing on climate science to
understand what your own universities are teaching?
This nominee, Mr. Pruitt, never had. When we met in my office, he
didn't even know who Berrien Moore was. Berrien Moore is the dean of
the College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences at the University of
Oklahoma. He is a nationally renowned climate scientist. Before this
nominee and I met in my office, for all this nominee's years of
litigation against doing anything about climate change, he had never
bothered to go to his own University of Oklahoma and find out from
there, his home State expert, what climate change was, how it worked,
and what it meant. Why not? The most logical answer is because he
didn't care to know. He had already chosen sides and had been richly
rewarded for doing so, although we don't know exactly how richly, since
his dark money operation is still a secret, protected by the Senate
Republicans who are shoving this nomination through.
Here is what Mr. Pruitt would have found out if he had bothered to go
to the University of Oklahoma to ask the dean about climate change. The
dean of the University of Oklahoma's College of Atmospheric and
Geographic Sciences has said: ``On the increasing strength of earth
sciences, we can now state that global warming is `unequivocal.' ''
The fact that the planet's warming and the fact that CO2
is a greenhouse gas and the fact that it is increasing in the
atmosphere and that increases in the atmosphere due to humans--about
those things? There is no debate.
He has said:

We know precisely how fast CO2 is going up in
the atmosphere. We have made a daily measurement of it since
1957. We have ice-core data before that.

He continued:

We know without any question, that it has increased almost
40 percent since the industrial revolution, and that increase
is due to human activity primarily fossil-fuel burning.

Those are the words of the dean at the University of Oklahoma, who is
the expert in this subject. And Mr. Pruitt had never bothered to
actually ever ask him. The fossil fuel industry had told him all he
needed to know, and that is going to be a continuing problem with him
as EPA Administrator.
I thought to myself, have any of the Senators on the Environment and
Public Works Committee, who voted for this nominee out of committee,
done any better? Which Senator on that committee has been troubled to
go for, say, half a day, to their own home State university and get a
briefing on climate science? As I have said, this matters to Rhode
Island because we are a downwind State. We have had bad air days where
little kids and seniors and people with breathing difficulties are
supposed to stay indoors in the air conditioning, not go outside. We
are seeing warming rising, acidifying seas along our shores, hurting
our fishermen, causing those families to lose those coastal homes I
showed.
And the hits are just going to keep on coming. A child born today at
Women & Infants Hospital in Providence, RI, can expect to see upward of
9 feet of sea level rise raging on Rhode Island shores in her lifetime,
according to the University of Rhode Island and our State agencies.
Well, it seems to me the least a downwind State like Rhode Island
might expect is some modicum of due diligence by colleagues who are
blocking action on this subject. At the University of Rhode Island, the
due diligence is very clear. URI is working with Rhode Island fishermen
to help predict the harm from warming and acidifying seas and figure
out what that means for our fisheries and our agriculture.
The Senator is from a State that has very distinguished fishing and
agriculture himself, and I am sure his home State universities are
doing similar research.
URI and our State agencies are drilling down to generate fine local
data on sea level rise and storm surge, and we are starting to be able
to predict, with specificity, which homes are likely to be lost in
storms, which roads will become inaccessible in coming decades, what
plan B is necessary to get emergency services to communities when
flooding bars the way, and what water and sewer and other public
infrastructure is at risk. These are all now the daily questions of
Rhode Island coastal life, thanks to climate change, and our University
of Rhode Island is at the forefront of studying that.
Of course, URI is not alone. You can go to every State university and
find climate change concerns. They just understand this stuff. They are
not actually just learning climate science, they are teaching about
climate change. It is astonishing that Senators from those States will
not listen to what their own universities teach.
Let's call the Republican roll of the Environment and Public Works
Committee, all of whom voted to suspend the committee rules to jam this
fossil fuel industry minion through to the Senate floor as
Administrator of the EPA, notwithstanding the black hole of secrecy
around his dark money dealings with the polluting fossil fuel industry,
and notwithstanding his years of stonewalling dozens of Open Records
Act requests, including the one that has just been ordered to be
disclosed by the judge today--thousands of emails.
Let's see what our Environment and Public Works Committee colleagues,
who cleared the way in committee for this nominee, would find at their
home State universities, if they looked.
Chairman Barrasso could go to the University of Wyoming, where he
would find the University of Wyoming Center for Environmental Hydrology
and Geophysics reporting: ``Many of the most pressing issues facing the
western United States hinge on the fate and transport of water and its
response to diverse disturbances, including climate change.''
He would find University of Wyoming scientists publishing articles on
``The effects of projected climate change on forest fires'
sustainability'' and the University of Wyoming awarding university
grants to study the effects of climate change on pollinators, on water
flow, on beaver habitat, and on whitebark pine growth, all work being
done sincerely at the University of Wyoming on climate change.
Next down the line, we come to Senator Inhofe of Oklahoma. The senior
Senator from Oklahoma could also go, of course, and consult Dean Moore
of the College of Atmospheric and Geographic Sciences at the University
of Oklahoma. But if he really wanted to dig in, he could also go over
to Oklahoma State and get an update from Oklahoma State Professor Riley
Dunlap, who has written in a peer review and scientific journal:
``Climate science has now firmly established that global warming is
occurring, that human activities contribute to this warming, and that
current and future warming portend negative impacts on both ecological
and social systems.''
``Portend negative impacts on both ecological and social systems''--
that is science-ese for it is going to hurt people, as we Rhode
Islanders already see all too plainly.
Oklahoma State's Professor Dunlap goes on to write something more.
However, he goes on to say:

There has been an organized ``disinformation'' campaign . .
. to generate skepticism and denial . . . to ``manufacture
uncertainty,'' . . . especially by attacking climate science
and scientists.

Wow. Huh?
And he goes on:

This campaign has been waged by a loose coalition of
industrial (especially fossil fuels) interests and
conservative foundations and think tanks--

Look at that. He seems to be agreeing with Dr. Brulle at Drexel
University--

that utilize a range of front groups and Astroturf operations
[to manufacture that uncertainty].

That is the research that Senator Inhofe would find at Oklahoma
State. That organized disinformation campaign that Professor Dunlap
reports on and the massive political muscle operation that supports it
explains a lot of what goes on around here. And if you cross-reference
the entities that Professor Dunlap puts into that organized
disinformation campaign, you will find them on the record supporting
this nominee. He is the nominee of the organized disinformation
campaign. And that is because, behind this whole mess

[[Page S1339]]

of a nomination, is the fossil fuel industry.
Let's go back to the Environment and Public Works Committee and
continue down the row on the majority side. We come next to Senator
Capito. Senator Capito from West Virginia could go to West Virginia
University, where the Mountaineers could show her their mountain
hydrology laboratory, which tells us, ``Climate change has important
implications for management of fresh water resources.'' These include,
``that the highlands region in the central Appalachian Mtns. is
expected to wet up.'' As warmer air, which carries more moisture, leads
to what West Virginia University is calling ``intensification of the
water cycle,'' the laboratory warns that, ``the implications of this
intensification are immense.''
West Virginia University's Wildlife Conservation Lab publishes
regularly on climate change effects, and one of West Virginia
University's climate scientists, Professor Hessl, has been recognized
by West Virginia University as West Virginia University's Benedum
Distinguished Scholar. West Virginia University even sends people all
the way to China to study climate change. Some hoax.
Onward. My friend, Senator Boozman, is next in the line. His home
State University of Arkansas has actually signed onto both the first
and second university president's climate commitments. And the
University of Arkansas has undertaken what it calls an aggressive and
innovative Climate Action Plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
help prevent climate change. The University of Arkansas explains the
need to reduce greenhouse gases, particularly including carbon dioxide
and methane. It is because these gases' ``absorption of solar radiation
is responsible for the greenhouse effect.''
Explaining further, the University of Arkansas describes that the
greenhouse effect ``occurs as these gases are trapped and held in the
Earth's atmosphere, gradually increasing the temperature of the Earth's
surface and air in the lower atmosphere.''
A University of Arkansas scientist predicts ``that the spread of
plant species in nearly half the world's land areas could be affected
by global warming by the end of the century.''
On down the EPW row is my friend Roger Wicker from Mississippi. Down
in Mississippi, the University of Mississippi, Ole Miss, actually has
an Office of Sustainability. The Ole Miss Office of Sustainability is
there ``to further the university's efforts to combat global climate
change.''
Believe it or not, Ole Miss is another signatory to that University
Presidents' Climate Commitment just like Arkansas. It is moving toward
net zero greenhouse gas emissions. By the way, so is the University of
Southern Mississippi. The director of the University of Mississippi's
Center for Hydroscience and Engineering explains why this matters.

Human influence and greenhouse gasses are the dominant
causes of the increase in global average temperature of the
earth. The impacts are observed in rising sea levels,
precipitation patterns, hydrologic regimes, floods and
droughts, and environmental processes.

He continues.

We must reduce our carbon footprint and take the necessary
steps to reduce our vulnerability to future climate change
impacts.

From the University of Mississippi. Also, at Ole Miss, anthropology
professor Marcos Mendoza warns that ``climate change is the greatest
environmental threat facing global society in the 21st century.'' Let
me say that again--from Ole Miss. ``Climate change is the greatest
environmental threat facing global society in the 21st century.'' But
the fossil fuel machine is going to see to it that we put a climate
denier into the EPA Administrator's seat.
So let's stay in Mississippi and go over to Mississippi State
University, where several professors contributed to the American
Society of Agronomy's report, ``Climate Change and Agriculture:
Analysis of Potential International Impacts.'' The forward to that
volume states that ``the threat of global climate change due to
anthropogenic modification of the atmosphere--the so-called greenhouse
effect--could potentially be one of the major environmental problems of
our time.''
Down on the gulf, all three Mississippi universities are working
together with Sea Grant, on what they call a climate team to assess
``the risk of environmental, economic, and societal impacts from rising
sea levels and storm surges.'' My friend who is presiding knows well
the effects in the gulf. When you are looking at the risk of
environmental, economic, and societal impacts from rising sea levels
and storm surges, you have something in common with Rhode Island as
well.
Let's go on to Nebraska from where Senator Fischer hails. The
University of Nebraska has published extensive reports on what they
call ``Climate Change Implications for Nebraska.'' One University of
Nebraska report leads with this blunt sentence: ``Climate change poses
significant risks to Nebraska's economy, environment, and citizens.''
Well, Nebraskans, it turns out, agree. The University of Nebraska has
published research that ``most rural Nebraskans believe the state
should develop a plan for adopting to climate change, as do 58 percent
of Nebraskans 65 and older.''
So even the elder Nebraskans by 58 percent believe it, and nearly 70
percent of young Nebraskans, from 19 to 29 years old. On the science,
the University of Nebraska reports the following:

Is there debate within the scientific community with regard
to observed changes in climate and human activities as the
principal causal factor? The short answer here is no, at
least certainly not among climate scientists; that is,
scientists who have actual expertise in the study of climate
and climate change.

Let me repeat that again from the University of Nebraska.

The University of Nebraska goes on.

For more than a decade, there has been broad and
overwhelming consensus within the climate science community
that human-induced effects on climate change are both very
real and very large.

As to scope of those effects, the University of Nebraska warns:

The magnitude and rapidity of the projected changes in
climate are unprecedented. The implications of these changes
for the health of our planet and the legacy we will leave to
our children, our grandchildren, and future generations are
of vital concern.

The University of Nebraska has even published what it calls ``Key
Climate Change Data for Nebraska.'' This is the list:
Temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1895; frost-
free season has increased 5 to 25 days since 1895; very heavy
precipitation events have increased 16 percent in the Great Plains
Region; projected temperature increase of 4 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit,
low-emissions scenario, or 8 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit, high-emissions
scenario, by 2100; projected summer of 2100 will have 13 to 25 days
over 100 degrees Fahrenheit; number of nights over 70 degrees
Fahrenheit will increase by 20 to 40 by 2100; soil moisture is
projected to decrease 5 to 10 percent by 2100; reduced snowpack in
Rocky Mountains equals reduced streamflow in our rivers; increasing
heavy precipitation events; increasing flood magnitude; increasing
drought frequency and severity.
That is the University of Nebraska's list of coming attractions to
Nebraska from climate change.
On to Kansas, where Senator Moran would learn from Kansas State
University about climate change's effects on agriculture in his home
State. Kansas State University Professor Charles Rice, Distinguished
Professor of Agronomy, working with the National Science Foundation is
using ``climate modeling tactics to predict the effects of climate
change in the Great Plains, and to develop adaptation and mitigation
strategies for agriculture in the region,'' to help meet what Kansas
State calls ``one of the grand challenges of the 21st century:
evaluating and predicting the biological and ecological consequences of
accelerating global climate change.''
Kansas State brought the executive director of agricultural giant
Cargill to talk about climate change. News reports describe what the
Cargill executive stated; that ``climate change is real and must be
addressed head-on to prevent future food shortages.'' Specifically, the
Cargill executive said that ``U.S. production of corn, soybeans, wheat,
and cotton could decline

[[Page S1340]]

by 14 percent by mid-century and by as much as 42 percent by late
century.'' This is a senior corporate executive in one of our leading
agricultural companies, warning of a 14-percent decrease in these
essential crops by midcentury, and as much as a 42-percent decrease by
late century.
From an agricultural standpoint, the executive said, ``We have to
prepare ourselves for a different climate than we have today.'' Maybe
that is why Kansas State calls evaluating and predicting the biological
and ecological consequences of accelerating global climate change one
of the grand challenges of the 21st century.
Let's head out to South Dakota, where Senator Mike Rounds would hear
from South Dakota State University about climate change on the Dakota
Plains. South Dakota State's Leffler Lab calls climate change ``the
signature challenge of the 21st century.'' So let's bear in mind, we
have the Kansas State University calling climate change ``one of the
grand challenges of the 21st century.'' We have South Dakota State's
Leffler Lab calling climate change the ``signature challenge of the
21st century.'' We have an EPA nominee who is a climate change denier,
wrapped so tight with the fossil fuel industry, you can't tell where
one ends and the other begins, and he has the support of the Senators
from Kansas and South Dakota.
It is a riddle. South Dakota State scientists are not just saying
that climate change is the signature challenge of the 21st century,
they are out studying climate change around the globe. From the Upper
Ghanaian forests of West Africa to the West Antarctica ice sheet. South
Dakota State University Professor Mark Cochrane is working with the
U.S. Forest Service to determine ``how a changing climate impacts
forest ecosystems'' and reported that ``forest fire seasons worldwide
increased by 18.7 percent due to more rain-free days and hotter
temperatures.''
The South Dakota State University News Center has reported that
season-shifting climate changes ``are all being affected by warming
from an increase in greenhouse gases due to human activity''--``all
being affected by warming from an increase in greenhouse gases due to
human activity.''
South Dakota State University even brought in Harvard Professor and
``Merchants of Doubt'' author Naomi Oreskes, saying that her work ``has
laid to rest the idea that there is significant disagreement in the
scientific community about global warming.'' Somebody needs to
translate between South Dakota State University and this EPA nominee.
So on we go to Iowa, continuing down the Environment and Public Works
Republican roster, where Senator Joni Ernst could hear from an Iowa
State University professor who told a United Nations conference not
long ago that ``climate change was already affecting Iowa farmers. This
is not just about the distant future,'' he said. Iowa State has
published extensive reach and I will just quote the title of it.
``Global Warming: Impact of climate change on global agriculture.''
Iowa State's prestigious Leopold Center views climate change not merely
as warming, but as a ``worsening destabilization of the planet's
environmental systems.''
Climate change is not just warming, it is a ``worsening
destabilization of the planet's environmental systems'' and yet the
good Senator voted to move this climate-denying industry tool forward
to be our EPA Administrator.
A worsening destabilization of the planet's environmental systems,
they call it, that will create ``an aggravated and unpredictable risk
that will challenge the security of our agricultural and biological
systems''--``aggravated and unpredictable risk that will challenge the
security of our agricultural and biological systems.''
That is Iowa State talking. They conclude: ``The scientific evidence
is clear that the magnitude of the changes ahead are greater, the rate
much faster, and [the] duration of climatic destabilization will last
much longer than once thought.''
Now we come to the end of the row of the Republicans on the
Environment and Public Works Committee.
As an Alaskan, Senator Dan Sullivan would get double barrels from the
University of Alaska, first about climate change and second about ocean
acidification.
``Alaska is already facing the impacts of climate change,'' the
University of Alaska reports.
This question of ``facing the impacts of climate change'' matters
enough to the University of Alaska that, on global warming, the
university has stood up the Alaska Climate Science Center. The Alaska
Climate Science Center has been established to help understand ``the
response of Alaska's ecosystems to a changing climate.''
The Alaska Climate Science Center of the University of Alaska is
charting the recordbreaking, year-over-year warming in Alaska,
analyzing temperature trends, and receiving awards for ``modeling and
evaluating climate change impacts in the Arctic.''
``One thing for sure,'' the center says, is that the climate ``will
continue to change as a result of various natural and anthropogenic
forcing mechanisms.''
Then there is the other climate change punch coming at Alaska, from
the sea. In addition to its Alaska Climate Science Center, the
University of Alaska is serious enough about this to have also stood up
an Ocean Acidification Research Center to address what it calls
``growing concerns over increased acidity in the ocean and the impacts
this phenomenon will have on Alaska's marine ecosystems''--``growing
concerns over increased acidity in the ocean and the impacts this
phenomenon will have on Alaska's marine ecosystems.''
Alaska's seafood industry is an enormous asset to Alaska's economy,
and it depends on Alaska's marine ecosystems. Well, the University of
Alaska's Ocean Acidification Research Center warns that ocean
acidification ``has the potential to disrupt this industry from top to
bottom''--``to disrupt this industry from top to bottom.''
The Ocean Acidification Research Center identifies the culprit of
this phenomenon as ``the transport of CO2 from the
atmosphere into the ocean.''
Indeed, as we have loaded up the atmosphere with more and more
CO2 emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, the ocean
has actually absorbed chemically about a third of that CO2.
In addition to all that heat I mentioned earlier that the ocean had
absorbed--more than 90 percent of the added heat--it actually absorbed
one-third of the carbon dioxide. Of course, when carbon dioxide
interacts with seawater, there is a change that takes place.
Indeed, why don't we see about doing a demonstration of that change.
It will take a minute to get that organized. While we are getting that
organized, let me continue.
Here is a description--thank you to the University of Maryland for
the graphic--of how atmospheric carbon dioxide turns the ocean acidic.
When you add additional CO2 to the atmosphere, at the
surface, where it meets the sea, there is a chemical exchange, and the
CO2 can be absorbed by the ocean. As I said, one-third of it
has been. That dissolved carbon dioxide joins with the water
chemically, and it creates carbonic acid. The carbonic acid, in turn,
creates bicarbonate ions, hydrogen ions, and carbonate ions, and those
ions interfere with the makeup of marine creatures, which make their
shells out of free carbon in the oceans, and some of those effects are
pretty apparent.
This is the shell of an ocean creature called a pteropod. It is at
the base of a great deal of the ocean food chain. There are studies off
the northwest coast that show that more than 50 percent of this
creature have experienced what the scientists who them caught them and
studied them called severe shell damage. Here is what happens when you
expose them to high concentrations of acidified seawater, higher than
usual. That is what it looks like day 1. That is a healthy shell.
Fifteen days later, it is starting to gray. Thirty days later, beyond
just starting to gray, it is starting to actually come apart. And by 45
days, the shell is a wreck. That is not an animal that is capable of
surviving.
So let's see how this works. This is a glass of water, and I have
just put 20 drops of a pH test into it. That shows what the acidity is
of the water. As you can see, it has turned the water rather blue,
which matches roughly this level of pH.

[[Page S1341]]

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to
continue with this little demonstration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, this is a very simple bubbler that
anybody with an aquarium will recognize. All you simply do is you put
the bubbler in. I produce carbon dioxide as I exhale. So I am exhaling
one breath into this same glass. I will do one more. It was not even a
full breath, but there it is.

It used to match that color; do you remember? Now look at what color
it matches. Just breathing carbon dioxide through the water has changed
its pH and has made it more acidic.
I can do that right here with a breath. It is happening on a global
scale, as the interaction between the atmosphere and the oceans
transports CO2 into the oceans. When that happens, the same
chemical effect that we modeled here takes place, and the oceans become
more acidic, and the effects continue to be damaging.
The previous shell that I showed was the pteropod, a humble creature,
but an important creature in the food chain. It is actually called the
ocean butterfly by some because its snail foot has been transformed by
God's law of evolution into an oceanic wing that allows it to fly in
the seas.
This is an oyster. The Senator's State of Louisiana does a lot of
work with oysters, as does Rhode Island. Again, exposing oyster larvae
to ocean water with heightened levels of acidity--day 1, day 2, day 4,
and then we see exposure to acidity. Here is what a healthy larva looks
like; here is what one exposed looks like. Here is what the healthy one
looks like; here is what the exposed one looks like. Here is a healthy
one; here is one exposed.
You will see that the healthy larva is growing day after day. It is
getting bigger. It is going to become an oyster. Somebody is going to
have a great oyster stew some day with that oyster with any luck.
This one is shrinking and deforming, and the reason is that the
little creature is trying to take the carbon out of the ocean to make
its shell--the calcium. And because of those ions that I pointed out,
it is bound up, and they can't get it. So they deform this way.
When you are at a point where more than 50 percent of ocean pteropods
are experiencing severe shell damage, if you are not paying attention,
you are going to take a big punch.
Now I know around here we don't give a darn about God's creatures as
being God's creatures. I probably sound funny to some people talking
about a funny little creature in the ocean called a pteropod. The
things we care about here are things that we can monetize because this
is Mammon Hall. This is the temple where gold rules.
These little creatures are a little bit away from the gold. But who
cares about the pteropod? I will tell you who cares about the pteropod.
Salmon care about the pteropod, and people care about the salmon, and
Alaska has a pretty good salmon fishery. The Pacific Northwest has a
pretty good salmon fishery. If you drop out the pteropod from the
bottom of the oceanic food chain because it can't grow because the
ocean has acidified, there is a big collapse to take place.
As scientists would say, the upper trophic levels fall as the lower
trophic levels collapse. So this is serious.
As I went through all these different Republican Environment and
Public Works Committee Senators' home State universities, maybe you
could say that all those home State universities are part of the
climate change hoax that our President is so pleased to tweet about.
If so, my colleagues really ought to call their home State
universities out about that. If they think their home State
universities are in on a hoax, I think it wouldn't be right, and they
ought to call out their home State universities. If the home State
universities are part of a big old hoax, say so. Say so. But if all of
my Republican colleagues' home State universities right down the line
on the Environment and Public Works committee aren't in on a hoax, if
what they are doing is good science, why not listen to them? Why not
listen to them? What is the dark star in this firmament that causes the
real science from the home State universities of these Senators to warp
and twist around as it comes to this body? What is the power? What is
the force that is causing every single one of these home State
universities to be ignored by their home State Senators?

Let me go back and review very briefly what they said. Home State
universities of the Republican Senators on the Environment and Public
Works Committee warn of ``pressing issues'' related to climate change.
That is Wyoming--pressing issues.
Assert that the science of climate change is ``unequivocal,''
``without any question.'' That is from Oklahoma.
Foresee ``immense'' implications related to climate change. That is
West Virginia.
Making anti-greenhouse gas ``climate commitments'' to fight climate
change. That is the University of Arkansas.
Warn that ``climate change is the greatest environmental threat
facing global society.'' That is Mississippi.
Find the ``significant risks'' from climate change to be ``of vital
concern.'' That is Nebraska. That is the one that had the hit list of
coming attractions from Nebraska of climate change
Describe climate change as ``one of the grand challenges of the 21st
century.'' That is Kansas.
Call climate change ``the signature challenge of the 21st century.''
South Dakota.
Predict ``aggravated and unpredictable risk'' from climate
disruption. That is Iowa.
Prepare for fisheries risk that could shake the State's seafood
industry ``from top to bottom.'' That is Alaska.
Right down the row of Republican Senators who voted for this climate
denying nominee, you have home State universities that say the
opposite, that say that it is real, that it is beyond scientific debate
at this point, that its effects are here, that its effects are
worsening, and that it is going to shake industries like the fishing
industry from top to bottom and create significant risk and
disturbances in agriculture. But not one of those Senators stood up
against the nominee who is the shameless tool of the industry that is
causing all that harm.
So I have to ask, how does that end? If you listen to what all your
home State universities are saying, this is a pressing and immense
grand challenge. This greatest environmental threat--it doesn't go
away. This is truth measured by science, God's and nature's truth, and
truth always demands a reckoning.
If we listen only to the fossil fuel industry as it lies and
prevaricates and propagandizes and disassembles and does all its
nonsense to protect its all-important right to pollute for free, how do
we expect this turns out in the end? Do you think these acidifying
shells give a red hot damn what a fossil fuel industry lobbyist says?
They are responding to laws of chemistry and nature that we don't get
to repeal or amend.
Let me make one last point in closing, as I saw Senator Carper here,
our distinguished ranking member, and I am sure he wants to speak.
Our Republican friends claim to support market economics. They are
big on how you have to trust the market. You shouldn't regulate.
Markets are the way to go. Market economics is the most efficient tool
for allocating resources. Market economics are how we create wealth.
Actually, I agree. So let's look at market economics.
What I believe and what economists say on all sides of the political
spectrum is that it is market economics 101 that for the market to
work, the harm of a product has to be built into the price of a
product.
The fossil fuel industry, the dark star of our politics, absorbing
and bending all of this home State information, absorbs and bends even
conservative market principles so that they disappear here in Congress,
at least wherever those principles conflict with what appears to be our
first principle: the well-being and the power of the fossil fuel
industry.
The fact that Senators do not hear or do not care about this science
from their home State universities tells you all you need to know about
the brute political force of the fossil fuel industry here in Congress.
(Mrs. ERNST assumed the Chair.)
Let me go back just a moment to something I said earlier, since we
have been joined by the Senator from Iowa

[[Page S1342]]

at this fine early hour in the morning. Just before she arrived, I was
talking about Iowa State. Since she is here, I will go back to those
remarks and to the Iowa State University professor who told a United
Nations conference not long ago that climate change is already
affecting Iowa farmers. ``This isn't just about the distant future,''
the Iowa State scientist said.
I noted that Iowa State has published extensive research on, and I
quote Iowa State University here, ``global warming, the impact of
climate change on global agriculture.''
Iowa State has a center called the Leopold Center, which perhaps the
Presiding Officer can confirm is a fairly prestigious institution
within the University of Iowa. Iowa State's Leopold Center ``views
climate change not merely as warming, but as a worsening
destabilization of the planet's environmental system.''
I hope the distinguished Senator from Iowa will review Iowa State's
view that this worsening destabilization of the planet's environmental
system will create, and I quote Iowa State University again,
``aggravated and unpredictable risks that will challenge the security
of our agricultural and biological systems'' and consider their
conclusion: ``The scientific evidence is clear that the magnitude of
the changes ahead are greater, the rate much faster, and the duration
of the climatic destabilization will last much longer than once
thought.''
Let me close, while we wait for Senator Carper, who is nearby, with
my final exhibit.
This is a page from the New York Times in 2009. It is a full-page ad
that was taken out in the New York Times in 2009, and it reads:

Dear President Obama and the United States Congress,
tomorrow leaders from 192 countries will gather at the U.N.
Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to determine the fate
of our planet. As business leaders, we are optimistic that
President Obama is attending Copenhagen with emissions
targets. Additionally, we urge you, our government, to
strengthen and pass U.S. legislation and lead the world by
example. We support your effort to ensure meaningful and
effective measures to control climate change, an immediate
challenge facing the United States and the world today.
Please don't postpone the earth. If we fail to act now, it is
scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic
and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.
Please allow us, the United States of America, to serve in
modeling the change necessary to protect humanity and our
planet.

That is the text of this advertisement in the New York Times in 2009.
And guess who signed it. Donald J. Trump, chairman and president;
Donald J. Trump, Jr., executive vice president; Eric F. Trump,
executive vice president; Ivanka M. Trump, executive vice president;
and the Trump Organization.
I will close with the sentence from this New York Times
advertisement, signed by Donald J. Trump, that ``the science of climate
change is irrefutable and our failure to act will have consequences
that are catastrophic and irreversible.'' President Trump's words, not
mine.
I yield the floor.
Mr. CARPER. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, good morning to our pages and members of
our staff, some of whom have been up all night.
I just walked over here from my office in the Hart Building and,
along the way, I ran into the Capitol Police and others who are putting
in a long day and a long night. I, on behalf of all of us, want to
express my thanks to them.
I have said this on several occasions--that I take no joy in going
through a chapter like we are going through tonight.
I come from a State on the east coast where we get along pretty well.
Democrats and Republicans sort of like each other. They tend to be
mainstream, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. We
have something called the Delaware way, and it is sort of based on the
three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate. This is what we
do. We have done it for a long time, and it seems to work for us.
Hopefully, when we get through this chapter--when we get through the
nomination process--we will be able to get back to the three C's.
I have the privilege, as the Presiding Officer knows, that when I got
out of the Navy I moved to Delaware, and I had an opportunity to serve
in a couple of different roles--as the treasurer, as a Congressman, and
then as the Governor for 8 years. In my time as Governor, according to
laws and the constitution of Delaware, the Governor nominates people to
serve as cabinet members, as members of the judiciary, and on a lot of
boards and commissions.
During those 8 years that I was privileged to serve as Governor, the
legislature was split--the House was Republican, and the Senate was
Democrat. When it came time to nominate members of my cabinet, my
predecessor was Governor Mike Castle, as the Senator from Rhode Island
knows. He was a moderate Republican, and he had been our Governor, and
before that our Lieutenant Governor. He was a State legislator and a
very successful attorney. When I was elected Governor, he was elected
Congressman. So we literally traded places. He took my job in Congress,
in the House, and I took his job as Governor.
It was really a wonderful transition, where I tried to help him make
that transition to be successful in the House of Representatives, and
he tried very much to help me be successful as a new Governor.
I, actually, went to something called the New Governor's School,
hosted by Roy Romer, who was then the chairman of the National
Governors Association--a wonderful guy. We were in the New Governor's
School out in Colorado, the newly elected Governors of 1992--Democrats
and Republicans, including people like George W. Bush, Tom Ridge, and
the list goes on. If I had had more sleep, I could remember every one
of them. It was just wonderful. Mike Levin, who later became the head
of the EPA, was one of them.
We learned a lot at the New Governor's School about how to set up and
establish an administration, how to put together an administration.
Mike Castle, Delaware's Governor, was part of the faculty, if you will,
of current Governors who mentored us in the New Governor's School, and
it was a blessing in my life.
I asked Governor Castle, as we were going through that transition, to
sort of walk me through his own cabinet and to suggest who might want
to stay, who might be interested in staying on in a new
administration--in my administration--and who, maybe, who would not. It
ended up, when I nominated people to serve in my cabinet, that there
were several there who had actually served in his. We had mostly
Democrats. I am a Democrat. But there were some Republicans as well.
Below the cabinet level, we had division directors, and we kept almost
all--not all but almost all of the division directors we asked to stay,
too.
For 8 years as Governor of Delaware, I would nominate people to serve
in either cabinet positions or on the judiciary or at other posts; but,
for 8 years, we batted 1,000. The State executive committee was
terrific in approving people, confirming people to serve in these
roles. It was not like I just rushed things--here is who we are
nominating. Go pass them.
That is not the way they worked. I asked them for their ideas. We
solicited their ideas, not just for the cabinet but, also, for the
judiciary.
At the end of the day, it was my role to actually nominate people,
and it was their role to provide advice and consent, and they did--a
little bit before but, certainly, throughout the nominating process. It
worked pretty well. It worked pretty well for our State, and I am proud
of the 8 years that our administration worked with the legislature and
with nonprofit communities, the faith community, and the business
community with what we accomplished.
I was trained as a leader from the age of 12, and our Presiding
Officer was trained as a leader, probably, from about the same age. We
both served in the military. She is a retired lieutenant colonel, and I
am a retired Navy captain. But I was trained that leaders

[[Page S1343]]

are humble, not haughty. I was trained that leaders should have the
hearts of servants, as our job is to serve and not be served. I was
trained that we basically call on people not to do what we say but to
do what we do. I believe in leadership by example. I was taught that
leaders don't hold their fingers up to the wind and see which way the
wind is going, but that we should have the courage to stay out of step
when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. I was trained that
leaders do not lead by dividing folks but by uniting people--by
building bridges, not walls. I was trained that leaders should be
purveyors of hope--that we should appeal to people's better angels. I
was trained that leaders ought to focus on doing what is right, not
what is easy or expedient, that we should embrace the Golden Rule--
really, embody the Golden Rule--by treating people the way we want to
be treated, that we should focus on excellence in everything we do and
surround ourselves with the best people we can find. When the team that
we lead does well, they get the credit, and when the team that we lead
does not do so well, the leader takes the blame. I was trained as a
leader with the idea that, when you know you are right, be sure you are
right. You just never give up. You never give up.
Those are the leadership skills that were infused into me by my
family and my faith. I was in the military for 23 years, plus 4 years
as a midshipman, and it helped make me who I am. Those are, really, the
leadership blocks that I bring to my job here.
We have had some great leaders in this body. We could use a
leadership like I have just described at the top of the food chain in
this country, in this administration. We could use that. I, thus far,
after about one month into this administration, I haven't seen that
kind of leadership that I had hoped for, that we had seen not that long
ago.
I want to commend everyone who has come to the floor in the last
almost 20 hours on our side--the Democratic side--and on the Republican
side to explain our points of view with respect to the nomination of
Scott Pruitt to be Administrator for the EPA in this country.
When Donald Trump was running for President, he said pretty
consistently that part of what he wanted to do as President was to
degrade and, essentially, destroy the Environmental Protection Agency.
He didn't just say it once or twice but again and again. When he won
the nomination, he said the same thing--that, if elected President,
part of his goal would be to degrade and, essentially, destroy the
Environmental Protection Agency. When he was elected President--a
couple of days after being elected--he repeated that pledge.
Sometimes people may not believe what we say, but they will believe
what we do. For me, the first clear indication that what he said with
respect to the Environmental Protection Agency was something that he
intended to do was the selection of a person to lead the Environmental
Protection Agency, and he chose the attorney general of Oklahoma Scott
Pruitt.
Scott was introduced at his confirmation hearing before the
Environment and Public Works Committee by the two Senators from
Oklahoma--James Lankford, with whom I serve on the Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs Committee--he is a great member--and Jim
Inhofe, who is our senior Republican on the Environment and Public
Works Committee.
They have very high regard for Scott Pruitt. They have spoken here on
the floor with regard to him and to his service. When someone whose
service and friendship I value as much as I do--James Lankford and Jim
Inhofe--speak so highly of a friend and a colleague from their State,
it is not easy for me, and it is not easy for the rest of us to oppose
that nominee--their friend. But we have done that. We have done that
for weeks now, and we have done that now throughout this night.
I take no joy in doing this. Having said that, I take no joy in the
fact that the levels of the seas around my little State of Delaware are
rising, and we are the lowest lying State in America, and we see every
day the vestiges of sea level rise.
I take no joy when I catch the train in the morning to come down
here--I go back and forth every day--I take no joy in standing on the
platform at the Wilmington train station and in looking at a beautiful
riverfront, which we have worked on for 20 years so as to transform an
industrial wasteland into something that is lovely, beautiful, and
clean. Even now, with the fish that swim in the Christina River, we
cannot eat them. In fact, from most of the bodies of water in my State,
we cannot eat the fish, and that is because of the mercury that is
contained in them. It is not just in my State, and it is not just in
our neighbors' States--Maryland and New Jersey. It is in the States all
up and down the east coast.
We live in what is called the end of America's tailpipe. A lot of
emissions that are put up into the air come from coal-fired plants to
our west--from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, which is my
native State, and other States. They have, in many cases, really tall
smokestacks, and they put their pollution--their air emissions--up
through the smokestacks. They go up hundreds and hundreds of feet into
the air. The air carries them out of their States. It carries the
pollution out of their States, and where does it settle? It settles in
ours. In States from Virginia on up into Maine. We live at the end of
America's tailpipe.
I take no joy that, of the freshwater fish in our State and a lot of
other places on the east coast and, frankly, in other places around the
country, you cannot eat those fish anymore.
I want to take a few minutes and pivot from that as background to
what we are going to look at--some charts--in a minute. Before we do, I
want to talk about why we can't eat the fish in too many places around
this country. And the reason why is because we get, I would say about
40 percent of our electricity from coal. Today it is maybe down to
around 30, maybe 25 to 30 percent, and maybe 25 to 30 percent from
natural gas. We get maybe 20 percent from nuclear, and the rest is from
the renewable forms of energy, including wind and solar technology as
it has gotten better and better and better.

One of the reasons my colleagues, particularly on this side, have
great concerns about the nomination of Scott Pruitt has to do with
mercury. As I have shared with the Senate, a review of Mr. Pruitt's
record yields some troubling information about how he managed the unit
within his own office in Oklahoma charged with responding to
environmental matters. Upon taking office, Mr. Pruitt essentially
gutted his own Environmental Protection Unit within the attorney
general's office. It appears he abandoned his responsibilities to use
his office to protect the public health of Oklahomans and declined to
use his authority to hold polluters and bad actors accountable.
A review of Mr. Pruitt's record yields nothing that shows how he will
change this behavior if he is confirmed to be EPA Administrator. In
fact, the New York Times reported earlier this month, on February 5,
that Mr. Pruitt is drawing up plans to move forward on the President's
campaign promise to ``get rid of'' the EPA.
Just remember, the EPA does not just involve clean air and clean
water and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The implementation of
the Toxic Substances Control Act deals with hazardous materials and the
products we use every day. The Environmental Protection Agency is a
huge player in the public health of our country for not just adults
like us but for young people like these pages, like my children, our
grandchildren--all of us--our parents, grandparents. The EPA is in
large part responsible for our being a healthier nation.
I am a big believer in going after root causes for illness and
sickness, and if you have mercury in your fish, if you have bad stuff
in your air, it degrades your health, and that is a big problem. It is
a big problem for us in Delaware because we spend a whole lot of money.
Ninety percent of the air pollution in my State doesn't come from
Delaware. It isn't generated in Delaware. It is bad stuff. It is air
emissions that come from other States. They are able to burn coal, get
cheap electricity, and because they put stuff in the air in tall
smokestacks, they send it over to us. They end up with cheap
electricity, lower healthcare costs, and we end up with having to clean
up our emissions dramatically, more so than we otherwise would. It is
expensive. So we end

[[Page S1344]]

up with expensive electricity and also healthcare costs that are higher
than the places where the pollution is coming from. That is just not
right.
I said earlier that I get no joy from going through this nomination
battle for Mr. Pruitt with my friends on the other side, but believe me
I get no joy from the idea that we end up with expensive electricity in
my State and higher health costs because other people in other parts of
our country don't embrace the Golden Rule, to treat other people the
way you want to be treated.
Going back to the New York Times article on February 5 that indicated
that Mr. Pruitt is drawing up plans to move forward on the President's
campaign promise to get rid of the EPA, they had these landing teams in
the course of the transition to go through each of the agencies. The
person who apparently was leading the administration's landing team
into the EPA called for reducing the head count at EPA. They didn't say
we are going to have a hiring freeze at the EPA. They didn't say we are
going to have a 1- or 2- or 3-percent reduction. They didn't say we
were going to reduce it by 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 percent. They said we are
going to reduce the head count at the Environmental Protection Agency
by two-thirds.
I guess it is possible that whoever this person is that heads up the
landing team of the EPA, maybe they don't have pollution in their
State. Maybe the air is pristine, and they can get all the fish they
want from all the other rivers, lakes, and streams. They don't have to
worry about toxic waste sites or any of that stuff. I doubt it.
I think part of our job is to make sure the EPA can do their job
better, but the kind of draconian changes President Trump has talked
about--and when you look at the record of the fellow they nominated to
lead the EPA, you get the feeling that maybe they are not just talking.
There is an old saying that sometimes people may not believe what we
say, they believe what we do so let's just take a look to see what Mr.
Pruitt has done in his own State of Oklahoma. I would say there are two
sides to every story, and we are hearing two sides to every story. What
I am going to do here is just draw on his own words.
The New York Times story goes on to say that Mr. Pruitt ``has a
blueprint to repeal climate change rules, cut staffing levels, close
regional offices and permanently weaken the agency's regulatory
authority.''
It continues:

As much as anyone, Mr. Pruitt knows the legal intricacies
of environmental regulation--and deregulation. As Oklahoma's
attorney general over the last six years, he has led or taken
part in 14 lawsuits against the EPA.
His changes may not have the dramatic flair favored by Mr.
Trump, but they could weaken the agency's authority even long
after Mr. Trump has left office.

And how will he achieve this objective of weakening the Agency's
authority? First, by diminishing the scientific basis by which the
Agency makes decisions.
Mr. Pruitt does not seem to value or understand the science that is
at the core of this Agency's actions to protect public health or the
important role EPA plays ensuring all States are doing their fair share
so every American can breathe clean air and drink clean water.
One area where his propensity to disregard science is especially
evident is Mr. Pruitt's extreme views on mercury and other air toxic
pollution from electric powerplants.
Much of our country's ongoing efforts to clean up air pollution
hinges on every State playing by the rules and doing their fair share
to reduce air pollution because the pollution generated in one State
does not just stay in that State. The air carries it across State
borders. Streams and rivers carry it across State borders as well.
As I said earlier, in my home State of Delaware, we have made real
strides in cleaning up our own air pollution that we generate.
Unfortunately, the other States to the west of us have not made the
same kind of commitment.
As I said a few minutes ago, over 90 percent of Delaware's air
pollution comes from our neighboring States. The air pollution is not
only a danger to our hearts and lungs and brains, it also costs a lot
in doctor bills and hospital bills and in our quality of life.
Not all, but some of this pollution is toxic. It comes across our
borders. These toxins that are in the air get in the food we eat as
well as the air we breathe and build up in our bodies without our
knowledge. Those buildups can lead to cancer, mental impairment and, in
some cases, even to death.
Delawareans depend on the EPA to ensure that our neighbors do their
fair share so we can protect our citizens. It hasn't always moved as
quickly as we would have liked, but without the EPA, our State of
Delaware wouldn't have many other options at our disposal.
Mr. Pruitt, however, seems to have spent a good part of his career
fighting to dismantle the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In
my State, our neighboring States, those of us who live especially at
the end of America's tailpipe depend on it for cleaner air and cleaner
water.
I have a poster here. Here is a fish, not one we would want to eat.
The poster says: ``Why isn't Scott Pruitt convinced?'' The scientists
and doctors tell us that mercury is a harmful toxin.
Mr. Pruitt has been a part of multiple lawsuits against the Federal
environmental protections--protections that are offered by EPA. Many of
these lawsuits again are against clean air protections. He has fought
against a rule to reduce mercury and other air-toxic pollution in this
country three separate times.
In 1990, Congress had enough scientific information to list mercury,
as well as 188 other air toxics, such as lead and arsenic, as hazardous
air pollutants in the Clean Air Act.
Lawmakers at the time, including me, serving in the House of
Representatives, thought this action would ensure our largest emitters
of mercury and air toxins would soon be required to clean up.
Unfortunately, it took 22 years for the EPA to issue the mercury and
air toxic rule, which reduced mercury and other air toxins from coal-
fired powerplants, our largest source of mercury emissions in this
country.
The EPA modeled this rule after what was being done in the States and
required coal plants to install existing affordable technology that
could reduce mercury and toxic emissions by 90 percent. The reason the
EPA ended up having to go through all these processes over all these
years in issuing this regulation is because Congress did not act in
passing legislation, which we should have done. We could have, and we
tried--a bipartisan effort--Lamar Alexander, a wonderful Senator from
Tennessee, and myself, and others sought to get it done, and we were
unable to get it done legislatively. We were opposed by the utilities,
and in the end, the EPA said enough and we are going to issue this
rule.
But for a lawmaker who supported the Clean Air Act amendments of
1990, and as someone who represents a downwind State, this rule is a
long time in coming. You would not know this from the claims in these
lawsuits, but since 1990, medical professionals and scientists have
learned quite a bit about the environmental and health impacts of
mercury.
The mercury emitted into the air deposits into our water. It then
builds up in our lakes and rivers and streams and eventually makes its
way into our food supply, through fish and fowl that we eat.
Children are most at risk, as many of us know. Pregnant mothers who
eat the mercury-laden fish can transfer unhealthy doses to their unborn
children, impacting neurological development of their babies.
Prior to EPA's mercury rule, the Centers for Disease Control
estimated that 600,000 newborns were at risk a year from mercury
poisoning--600,000.
In 2012, Dr. Jerome Paulson, from the American Academy of Pediatrics,
testified before our EPW Committee, stating that ``there is no evidence
demonstrating a safe level of mercury exposure.''
Dr. Jerome Paulson, American Academy of Pediatrics, testified before
our committee in 2012. Again, he said: ``There is no evidence
demonstrating a safe level of mercury exposure.''
Our Nation's most reputable pediatric organization, dedicated to the
health and well-being of our children, has made clear that medical
research shows there is no safe level of mercury exposure for our
children--none.

[[Page S1345]]

Mr. Pruitt has come to his own conclusions about mercury.
The 2012 lawsuit that Mr. Pruitt joined with coal companies against
the mercury and air toxics rule stated--this is what the lawsuit said:
``The record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury
hazardous air pollutant metals, and acid gas hazardous air pollutants
pose public health hazards.''
I have to read that again. In the 2012 lawsuit in which Mr. Pruitt
joined with coal companies against the mercury and air toxics rule,
which was like 20 years in the making, finally adopted because Congress
refused to act, said these words: ``The record does not support EPA's
findings that mercury, non-mercury hazardous air pollutant metals, and
acid gas hazardous air pollutants pose public health hazards.''
This is not the first time Mr. Pruitt contradicted the medical and
scientific community on mercury and the threats it poses to public
health.
As I said, EPA took 22 years to get the coal plants to clean up the
mercury emissions. Every year that our country delayed the cleanup of
the emissions, more and more mercury settled and accumulated in our
rivers, streams, lakes, and fish.
I don't know how many lakes they have in Oklahoma, but I know that in
2010, there were fewer than 20 on which there were issued fish
consumption advisories because of mercury. I know last year that number
more than doubled.
Every State, including Oklahoma, has fish consumption advisories
because of mercury. As we see here, the number under Mr. Pruitt's watch
has seen the mercury-caused fish advisories to actually more than
double in the last 6 years.
In 2012, Dr. Charles Driscoll from Syracuse University--one of the
leading mercury scientists in the world--testified before our
committee. Dr. Driscoll told us that because of the long-term emissions
of mercury from coal plants, there are--his words--``hotspots and whole
regions, such as the Adirondacks, the Great Lakes region of the Midwest
and large portions of the Southeast, where the fish is contaminated
with mercury.''
He went on to say: ``There are more fish consumption advisories in
the U.S. for mercury than all contaminants combined.''
Instead of agreeing with leading scientists on this issue, Mr. Pruitt
has come to a different conclusion.
I think we have a poster that speaks to this.
Mr. Pruitt's 2012 lawsuit with the coal companies against EPA's
mercury protection stated:

The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury . .
. poses public health hazards. . . . Human exposure to
methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs is exceedingly
small.

Mr. Pruitt argued that, despite the fact that every State has at
least one mercury fish consumption advisory and despite there being 40
lakes in his own State of Oklahoma now that have mercury fish
advisories, we shouldn't worry about mercury pollution from our
country's largest source of emissions. That denial of facts makes no
sense. Luckily, the courts rejected Mr. Pruitt's arguments that the
mercury and air toxic rules should be vacated. Four years later, most
coal plants are meeting the new standards, and we are already seeing
the benefits.
Just a few weeks ago, some of my Environment and Public Works
colleagues and I heard from Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and former
EPA Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, about this very issue
when she said: ``U.S. efforts to reduce mercury emissions, including
from power plants, are benefiting public health faster than could have
been predicted in 1990.''
Great news. Dr. Goldman's comments stand in stark contrast to the
ones made in Mr. Pruitt's latest mercury lawsuit, filed just 2 months
before his confirmation hearing. In this most recent lawsuit, Mr.
Pruitt argued that the benefits of cleaning powerplant mercury
emissions are ``too speculative'' and--again, his words--``not
supported by the scientific literature.'' Really? The lawsuit goes on
to conclude that it is not ``appropriate and necessary'' for the EPA to
regulate mercury and other air toxic emissions.
So Mr. Pruitt argued just 3 months ago that it is not appropriate or
necessary for the EPA to regulate the largest source of mercury
pollution--a pollutant that we know damages children's brains and could
impact up to 600,000 newborns every year. Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt
listened to the industry instead of listening to our Nation's
pediatricians when determining what is good for our children's health.
Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt sided with coal companies instead of our
leading scientists. Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt argued that States
should be on their own when it comes to dealing with toxic pollution
that crosses State borders.
In Mr. Pruitt's confirmation hearing, I asked about these lawsuits
and his views on regulating mercury and air toxics from powerplants. He
was evasive and misleading, I believe, in his answers and claimed his
lawsuits were merely about process. Process.
Well, let's be perfectly clear. Mr. Pruitt's lawsuits are trying to
undermine a rule that protects the health of our children and our
grandchildren. His extreme views on mercury pollution clearly show Mr.
Pruitt believes that Americans have to make a choice between having a
strong economy and a safe, clean environment. I think this is a false
choice. We can have both, and indeed we must have both.
His extreme views on mercury pollution also show that Mr. Pruitt will
side with polluters over science and doctors--maybe not every time, but
way too often.
Americans deserve an EPA Administrator who believes in sound science
and who will listen to the medical experts when it comes to our health
and be able to strike a balance between a strong environment and a
strong economy. I don't believe Mr. Pruitt will be such an
Administrator, which is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in
voting against his confirmation.
I see we have been joined on the floor by the Senator from Indiana. I
am prepared to hit the pause button for a few minutes and welcome my
friend. I welcome him and thank him for his commitment, not just to the
people of Indiana but to our country and embracing the Golden Rule, the
idea that we have to look out for each other.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, it is an honor and a privilege to be
here with my colleague from Delaware. I wish to take a few moments to
talk about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
I have expressed my fair share of constructive criticism of the EPA
over the years. I wish the Agency would work more effectively with
States and stakeholders. Collaborative partnerships are the best way to
ensure that our environmental policies meet our fundamental
responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, while also being
narrowly tailored to avoid overburdening Hoosier families and
businesses.
Teamwork is what will give us the best chance at responding
effectively to emergencies like the ones facing my friends in the East
Chicago neighborhood of West Calumet. Cooperation with farmers, not
overregulation, is how we keep nutrients and inputs in the field and
improve water quality.
If confirmed, I hope Scott Pruitt will focus on improving the EPA's
working relationship with State partners and all stakeholders as the
Agency engages in its mission to protect our environment. That is an
issue I have been working on for years, and I will continue to do so. I
cannot, however, support Scott Pruitt's nomination to lead the EPA.
When I think of who should lead the EPA, given all the Hoosiers who
are impacted by the rules and policies developed by this Agency, I
think of how we are all dependent on clean air and water, but I also
think of the last time an EPA Administrator visited my home State. It
was in 2013, in a cold barn in Whiteland, IN, when then-Administrator
Gina McCarthy visited with me and a number of my good friends--Hoosier
farmers from across the State. It was the morning after the EPA had
announced drastic cuts to the renewable fuel standard--not an ideal
time to be Administrator of the EPA in a barn with a group of Hoosier
farmers.
That morning, farmers told the story of how important the renewable
fuel

[[Page S1346]]

standard is to rural economies and our national security. They told
Administrator McCarthy how her Agency's decision had eliminated market
opportunities for their products, for all of the things they had been
growing, and it meant that we were putting our energy security at risk
as well because less ethanol and biodiesel being used meant importing
more foreign oil instead of growing our fuel on Hoosier farms.
A few days later, Scott Pruitt sent out a press release calling those
RFS cuts ``good news'' and highlighting his earlier efforts suing the
EPA in an attempt to block the regulatory approval of E15. I cannot
support an EPA nominee who has sued the EPA to stop the sale of E15 and
who praised the erosion of a policy designed to strengthen our energy
security and to promote homegrown Hoosier biofuels.
If confirmed, however, I look forward to working with Scott Pruitt to
develop a better and more collaborative approach to regulation by the
EPA. We have very, very important work to do, including cleaning up
environmental dangers in our communities, like those in East Chicago;
ensuring the safety of drinking water systems; developing a better
WOTUS rule; and finding a workable solution to address climate change.
That work in East Chicago is going to prevent me from being able to
be here to vote against the Pruitt nomination. The Governor of our
State has called a working meeting today in East Chicago with the
mayor, State and local elected officials, representatives from HUD and
EPA, and other neighborhood stakeholders. It is of utmost importance
for me to be on the ground with the community to let them know we are
listening and we are working to get the resolution they deserve and to
protect their health and safety.
As I will be heading back home to Indiana before the vote on the
Scott Pruitt nomination, I would like the record to state that, if
here, I would have voted against the nomination of Scott Pruitt for the
EPA.
I wish to recognize my colleague and friend from Delaware, who has
done such an extraordinary job in protecting the resources of this
country and in protecting the security of this country as well--his
love for his home State, with the beautiful beaches, beautiful oceans.
And my home State--we have the Great Lakes, which are an extraordinary
resource, which we are so blessed to have, and which are a trust we
keep for one generation after another. I have always felt it my
obligation to make sure I turn over those lakes and, in fact, the
oceans in better condition than we receive.
I yield to my colleague from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I thank my friend for those kind and
generous remarks. I thank him for coming to Delaware. I have been
privileged to visit the Hoosier State any number of times. I have a
basketball in my office from Notre Dame, and I know our friend from
Indiana is a huge Notre Dame fan. Their basketball coach, Mike Brey, is
the former basketball coach of the University of Delaware. Just like
air pollution and water pollution can move across borders, so can head
coaches of great basketball teams.
Tomorrow night, God willing, I will be at the Bob Carpenter Center at
the University of Delaware to watch the University of Delaware's men's
basketball team play. Our new head coach is one of Mike Brey's
assistants who has come to our State to head us up. We look forward to
seeing how he and our Fightin' Blue Hens do.
I thank the Senator for sharing--a whole lot less air pollution--
after stealing our basketball coach, a very good replacement; I guess
not the player to be named later but the coach to be named later.
Mr. DONNELLY. Madam President, the Senator's efforts on this have
been extraordinary. To see the depth of concern the Senator has for our
oceans, for our lands--we have both worked so hard to make sure we can
work together with our farm communities to keep inputs on the farm, to
protect our rivers, to protect our streams. We know how hard our
farmers are working on that as well. I know the Senator has a
tremendous and strong farm community in Delaware. It was a privilege to
sit and listen while the Senator was speaking before.
I will note, as he said, you may have sent us a basketball coach, but
in return, we sent you one as well.
I turn the floor over to my colleague from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Madam President, one of the things I love about the
Senator from Indiana is he understands there is a Golden Rule. We are
one another's neighbors, and we need to treat others the way we want to
be treated. States need to treat other States the way they would want
to be treated.
He also understands a very valuable principle: that it is actually
possible to have cleaner air, cleaner water, and strengthen our
economy.
When I was an undergrad at Ohio State, a midshipman there, I remember
a time up north of us in Cleveland, OH, when the Cuyahoga River caught
on fire. The kind of smog we have now in parts of the country, running
in places in California, when I was stationed in California in the Navy
for a while--there are days when I ran that I knew I wasn't doing a
good thing for my lungs.
We have done a lot better than that. While we cleaned up rivers like
the Cuyahoga River and we cleaned up the air in a lot of places in the
country, we still have work to do. We have made those changes and those
improvements and developed technology that we have been able to sell
all over the world. That is a good thing.
I thank my friend for getting up at this hour of the day and joining
us here and for his leadership, not just in Indiana but here in the
Senate. It has been a joy. Thank you.
I want to go back to what I was talking about earlier--Scott Pruitt's
views. I think they are extreme, uninformed views on mercury
regulation. Mr. Pruitt's views on core clean air and clean water laws
and the somewhat misleading and oftentimes evasive answers he has given
to Members of this body, including myself, ought to be reason enough
for Members of this body to reject his nomination.
Two months prior to his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt filed his
third major legal action against the EPA's mercury and air toxics rule.
This case is still pending before the courts.
For those who don't know the EPA's mercury and air toxics rule, it
requires our Nation's largest source of mercury pollution--coal-fired
plants--to reduce mercury in a wider range of air toxins.
The EPA issued this rule in 2012, and because of the low cost of
compliance, most utilities are already meeting the standards. We made
more progress at a faster time, at a lower cost than was actually
anticipated. The same thing is true with the elimination of acid rain
in New England. The deal that was worked out was a cap-and-trade
approach, but the idea was developed when George Herbert Walker Bush
was President. We ended up with better results for less money and
faster time than was anticipated. We can do this.
Mr. Pruitt filed his latest lawsuit alongside with one of the
Nation's largest coal companies, Murray Energy Corporation, arguing
that the benefits of cleaning up powerplant and mercury and air toxic
emissions are ``too speculative'' and not necessary.
Mr. Pruitt goes on to argue that there are only ``hypothetically
exposed persons'' from mercury and air toxic emissions from
powerplants. Imagine that--``hypothetically exposed persons.'' Again, I
would say: Really?
Finally, Mr. Pruitt argues: ``The EPA cannot properly conclude it is
appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants under
Section 112.''
His boiled-down arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC
Circuit is basically this: If the EPA cannot quantify benefits in
dollars, then those benefits don't count. Never mind that we know the
real-world health threats to people this kind of air pollution poses.
The idea of looking at public health protection only through the lens
of dollars and cents is not a new one, but it can be a dangerous one.
The tools we have for projecting costs and putting a dollar value on
the health benefits are not gospel and are not the only way of
analyzing the economic impacts of reducing pollution on a community.
With toxic substances, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury, health
benefits are sometimes difficult to quantify.

[[Page S1347]]

Meanwhile, the EPA is chock-full of examples where benefits are
underestimated and costs overestimated once programs are implemented
and businesses find efficient ways of cutting pollution. In my part of
the country, we call that Yankee intuition.
Mr. Pruitt's argument ignores that it is difficult, if not
impossible, to quantify the loss of IQ, increased risk of cancer, or
other long-term health effects known to occur when exposed to mercury
and air toxic emissions.
In Mr. Pruitt's world, if we can't accurately translate loss of IQ
into dollars lost, the benefits of cleaning up mercury for other
children is ``too speculative'' for it to be ``necessary and
appropriate'' for EPA to act. As a father of three sons, I find this
way of thinking alarming.
I have a poster here with a message from a woman in Wilmington, DE.
Wilmington is in the northern part of the State, where our
congressional delegation and Governor and his family live.
This is from Sarah. I would ask Mr. Pruitt this: How much does it
cost to lose an organ like I have, to lose a parent or child from
cancer? How much do sick days and inhalers cost? Families are
struggling to make ends meet. Many of these costs are not in dollars
alone.
Thank you, Sarah.
Sarah is a mother and a registered nurse. She wrote to me earlier
this month to express her concerns regarding Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
In her letter, she explained to me that she was born in 1978, in
Western New York State. It is miles away from the Love Canal
neighborhood. It is the site of one of the most appalling environmental
disasters in American history.
For those who don't know or don't recall, Love Canal was a planned
community that eventually had to be evacuated after 22,000 barrels of
toxic waste were dumped into the nearby canal--22,000 barrels. Families
whose homes were contaminated with chemicals and toxic waste had to
leave. Many faced serious health challenges later in their lives. These
were the real threats we faced before we had the EPA or laws on the
books that held polluters accountable for dumping hazardous chemicals
in our waters.
Sarah's mother was pregnant with her while Love Canal was being
evacuated, just 7 miles away from their home. Fast forward a few
decades. When Sarah was 30, she found out that she had thyroid cancer.
Doctors told her that exposure to radiation, perhaps from the
radioactive hotspots near her hometown, is a proven risk factor for
thyroid cancer.
Sarah now has a daughter of her own who, unfortunately, suffers from
reactive airway disease that causes her trouble breathing, and symptoms
can last anywhere from a few minutes to hours at a time.
Sarah, in her letter, said to me:

Mr. Pruitt believes that the EPA places economic hardships
on businesses through unnecessary regulation. True economic
hardship is experienced by those who are often least
protected by environmental laws.

She went on to say:

I would ask Mr. Pruitt: How much does it ``cost'' to lose
an organ like I have? To lose a parent or child to cancer?
How much do sick days and inhalers cost families already
struggling to make ends meet? What is the life path of a
person who starts out with compromised lungs? Many of these
costs are not in dollars alone.

Sarah couldn't be more right. An EPA Administrator must be able to
understand the true human cost of rolling back or eliminating critical
environmental regulations.
Mr. Pruitt's persistent and extreme views--or at least extreme views
in my mind--on the mercury and air toxics rule are some of the reasons
I have grave concerns about his nomination to be EPA Administrator.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Pruitt will continue to fight this
rule--not from outside the Agency, but from inside the Agency.
I wonder if Mr. Pruitt would uphold the clean air protection that has
bipartisan support or if he would kill the rule and take his extreme
views of cost-benefit analysis broader, to other issues such as
cleaning up lead in our water or addressing climate change.
That is why I asked him not once, not twice, but three times about
his views on the mercury and air toxics rule. I asked him directly
three times if EPA should move forward with the rule and if EPA should
be regulating mercury and air toxic emissions from powerplants. Each
time I asked, the more evasive and misleading the answers became.
In our three exchanges, I was very clear that I was asking about
EPA's regulations and the authority to address mercury emissions from
powerplants.
However, in Mr. Pruitt's answers, he was very careful to mention that
mercury pollution should be regulated under the Clean Air Act but never
said that mercury and other air toxic emissions from powerplants should
be or must be regulated.
Mercury, as it turns out, is emitted by many sources. Coal-fired
powerplants happen to be the largest emitter in this country. Under
section 112 of the Clean Air Act, Congress listed mercury as a
hazardous air pollutant and required the EPA to regulate all major
emissions sources.
It seems that Mr. Pruitt tried to avoid the questions I asked him
about controlling mercury and air toxic powerplant emissions. He,
instead, answered about regulating mercury more broadly.
While he was trying to evade the questions, what he did say was very
misleading to the committee.
In our second exchange, I mentioned his three lawsuits against the
mercury and air toxics rule. I asked Mr. Pruitt if he believed the EPA
should not move forward with this rule and, if there were no rule, how
would States clean up mercury?
Mr. Pruitt answered: ``I actually have not stated that I believe the
EPA should not move forward on regulating mercury or adopting
rulemaking in that regard.''
He went on to say: ``There is not a statement--or belief--that I have
that mercury is something that shouldn't be regulated under Section 112
as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.''
Well, anyone who supports the mercury and air toxics rule and heard
that might be very encouraged by these comments.
Sadly, Mr. Pruitt is on record many times stating that the EPA should
not move forward regulating mercury and air toxic powerplant emissions.
Here are a few quotes from the legal briefs that Mr. Pruitt filed in
his many lawsuits against this rule that directly contradict his
statements in our hearing.
In his first lawsuit against the mercury and air toxics rule, called
White Stallion v. EPA, Mr. Pruitt argued: ``Finally, the record does
not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury Hazardous Air
Pollutant metals, and acid gas Hazardous Air Pollutants pose public
health hazards.''
In his most recent case with Murray Energy, he argues that, with
respect to powerplant mercury emissions, the ``EPA cannot properly
conclude that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate Hazardous Air
Pollutants under Section 112.''
These statements go well beyond questioning the ``process.'' Instead,
they suggest the EPA should not be regulating mercury and toxic air
emissions from powerplants.
This is not what even Trump voters voted for in November. They did
not go to the polls hoping that the new President would make their air
dirtier or their water more polluted.
This is another case of this nominee trying to mislead, or at least
obscure, the truth before Congress. It is a troublesome pattern that I
fear will only get worse if Mr. Pruitt is confirmed as EPA
Administrator.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Gardner). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to continue to share with you and
my colleagues the reasons I am opposed to the nomination of Attorney
General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
What we do know about Mr. Pruitt's past record--and there is still a
good deal we don't know and are not able to learn in committee. We know
Mr. Pruitt abandoned his responsibilities to

[[Page S1348]]

protect Oklahomans from harmful pollution. Instead of holding polluters
and bad actors in the State accountable, Mr. Pruitt spent a lot of his
time as attorney general in Oklahoma suing the Environmental Protection
Agency.
These days, going after the EPA public health protection seems like a
popular thing to do. In fact, the EPA is often a target of nasty tweets
from our current President.
Without the burning rivers or thick smog and soot in the air, which
used to be all too common, some may presume that there is not much more
for the EPA to do to protect the public health of our country from
pollution. People may presume that our environmental protection
problems are behind us, and States can take care of themselves when it
comes to clean air and clean water, as Mr. Pruitt has suggested time
and again.
I am a recovering Governor, a former Governor for 8 years. I have
huge regard for what Governors can do, States can do. There is a lot we
can do, but not everything. That is not the idea--that States can
simply take care of themselves when it comes to clean air and water,
and there is no need for Federal oversight. It is just wrong. I think
it is untrue. The EPA continues to play a critical role in protecting
our health, especially for the most vulnerable, including the very
young and the elderly. The environmental threats we face today are real
and do not respect State borders.
One such threat is ozone, known to some as smog pollution. Five
times, Mr. Pruitt has sued the EPA over regulations to require new
ozone, smog protections. Several of these lawsuits are still pending
before the courts.
Mr. Pruitt's actions against ozone health protection are deeply
concerning to me, as I represent a State at the end of what many of us
on the east coast call America's tailpipe. Emissions come up from the
Midwest, largely, and blow from west to east and end up in our air and
in our water. Ninety percent of the smog and air pollution in Delaware
comes from outside of our State, partly from hundreds of miles away--
places like Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest.
I said many times as Governor of Delaware that I could have
eliminated every source of pollution within my State--shut down the
factories, cleared every car off the road, stopped trains and transit
or boats. Delaware would still face the deadly doses of air pollution,
not from our own emissions, but from those blowing in our State from
hundreds of miles away.
We have a chart here to my left that we call the Ozone Report Card.
Ozone is smog pollution. It deals not with quality of air pollution in
Delaware, but it is a report card for Oklahoma. Cross-state ozone air
pollution continues to be a major problem for our State, but it also is
for many States across the country.
In Mr. Pruitt's own home State of Oklahoma, every county with an air
quality monitor--16 counties; they have more than 16 counties, but 16
have air quality monitors--has an unhealthy level of ozone pollution,
according to the American Lung Association. The American Lung
Association assigns grades in subjects, just as for our pages here in
school. My home State has A's and B's. The Oklahoma Lung Association
assigns a grade for ozone pollution. In these 16 counties, they
assigned a grade of F, not just in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10--all 16.
For decades, we have known that air pollution is linked to serious
health problems like asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks, and other
respiratory illnesses. Most recently, ozone has been linked to early
deaths.
We have another chart that refers to Oklahoma's asthma rate.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6.3
million children in this country have been diagnosed with asthma--6.3
million children diagnosed with asthma. In Mr. Pruitt's home State of
Oklahoma, 1 in 10 children have asthma, which is higher than the
national average. That is 6.3 million children nationwide, and more
than 112,000 in Oklahoma who have to worry, during the high ozone days,
if they are going to have an asthma attack.
Recognizing the very real dangers of ozone pollution, Congress passed
the EPA to provide our country with the ozone air quality standards
based on the best science available, and they review that standard
every 5 years. After reviewing more than 1,000 medical and scientific
studies, the EPA concluded about 2 years ago, in 2015, that the 2008
ozone health standard was too weak and no longer adequately protected
public health.
The EPA's 2015 rule was purely a statement of fact to protect our
health. To protect the 6.3 million children with asthma, we need less
ozone pollution in our air. To protect 112,000 children with asthma in
Oklahoma, we need a stronger air quality standard.
Fortunately, many of today's biggest emitters of ozone pollution,
such as older coal plants, are already scheduled to be cleaned up. This
means the costs of compliance are not as high as they might have been
2, 4, or 6 years ago.
As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt had a choice between two paths. If he
had taken the first path, Mr. Pruitt could have worked with his
Department of Environmental Quality and the business community to
ensure ozone polluters in his own State cleaned up. He could have
worked with the EPA, not against it. By doing so, he would have
protected Oklahomans and citizens living in downwind States from ozone
pollution and helped economic growth and the State at the same time. It
is important to note that many attorneys general in this country
decided to take this path, including our own attorney general, Matt
Denn, in Delaware.
Instead, Mr. Pruitt took a second path, the one that led to suing the
Agency, the EPA, in an attempt to weaken protections. It is no surprise
that Mr. Pruitt chose to sue the EPA, based on his clear record.
I have a poster here with some of his own words. After all, it was
Mr. Pruitt who just last summer explicitly said it bothers him that
Congress and the EPA work together to ensure Americans have clean air
to breathe--or appears to say that. Specifically, here is what he said:

Legislation should not be ``we like clean air, so go make
clean air.'' That's something that bothers me, that then
Congress gives to EPA this general grant of authority.

That was at Hillsdale College in July of 2016. I would just ask, What
then does Mr. Pruitt think the role of EPA is? It is hardly some kind
of extreme overreach to keep deadly pollutants out of the air we
breathe. I think most people think that. Mr. Pruitt chose to sue the
EPA over the science used to justify in writing the regulations, citing
the polluters over the medical and scientific experts who have
published over 1,000 scientific studies that the EPA has reviewed.
Mr. Pruitt did not stop there. He also sued the EPA over protections
for downwind States. Delaware is one of them. Let me repeat that. Mr.
Pruitt not only sued the EPA over science used in the 2015 ozone rule,
but he also sued the EPA over the good neighbor rule to make sure all
States do their fair share to clean up the air. Without the good
neighbor rule, Delawareans, and all Americans living in downwind
States, will be forced to live with the consequences of decisions made
by polluters hundreds or thousands of miles from them. Mr. Pruitt took
the stance that every citizen in this country does not have the right
to breathe clean air. Mr. Pruitt took the stance that the lawyers and
polluters know better than scientists and medical experts when it comes
to ozone pollution and health.
The President is asking us in this body to confirm Mr. Pruitt as our
EPA Administrator. As Senators, we can also choose between two paths.
The first path is protecting public health and ensuring that those who
elected us have clean air to breathe. The second path is protecting
polluters. I will be taking the path that protects the health of my
constituents. I urge my colleagues to do the same for theirs.
In just a moment, I am going to pause. Before I do, I mention this
good neighbor rule. Some people call it the cross-border rule. The idea
behind it is that we ought to treat one another as neighbors.
Where does the good neighbor rule come from? It actually comes from
the Bible. And it comes not just from the Bible, it comes from almost
every major religion in the world--the idea that we ought to treat
other people the way we want to be treated. If you look at every major
religion in the world, it pretty much says that.
In the New Testament, some will recall, there is a passage where the
Pharisees were after this young Rabbi,

[[Page S1349]]

a couple thousand years ago, trying to put Him on the spot. They said:
You are so smart, young Rabbi, why don't You tell us what is the
greatest rule of law, the greatest commandment of all? He said: Not
one, there are two. He mentioned the first. Then He said: The second is
love thy neighbor as thyself.
One of the pharisees said to Him: Who is our neighbor? And He went on
to tell them the parable of the good Samaritan. A man traveling through
the country was attacked, left for dead in a ditch. Later in the day,
three people walked by, one from a part of the country where this guy
was sort of his neighbor. He walked on by. Next, a person of the cloth,
a rabbi, walked on by. He didn't stop. The third guy that came through
was from a place called Samaria. They are like at enmity, at odds with
one another. They are not friendly; they are at odds with one another.
He saw the fellow had been beaten and left for dead. He ministered to
him and put him on his animal and took him to an inn. For a day and a
night, he tried to help him get better. After the second day, the guy
from Samaria had to leave and had to go someplace else. He said to the
innkeeper: This fellow still isn't well enough to travel, but here is
some money to help pay for his care here for another day or two. When I
come back through, if you need more money or it costs more, I will even
up with you. He left, but he left the guy who had been beaten in a lot
better shape.
After telling His story, the young Rabbi turned to the pharisee and
he said: Who was the good neighbor?
Well, there was the one--the first fellow who came by who took pity
on the guy who had been beaten and left for dead and treated him the
way he would have wanted to be treated.
That is really the foundation of the good neighbor rule that the EPA
has promulgated. It is the foundation of the idea that pollution does
cross borders and because of that, we need to have--if we can't pass a
law, we need some kind of rule or regulation to ensure that everybody
is being a good neighbor because it is not fair that my State--that we
can pretty much close down my State's economy, transportation systems,
powerplants, and still have a problem with air quality. That is just
not fair.
I think next we are going to look at some editorial statements that
are in opposition to Mr. Pruitt. I know there are editorial statements
that support him. I don't have any of those today, not surprisingly.
But I do want to go through a couple from newspapers around the
country: New York Times, Bangor News up in Maine, L.A. Times, Denver
Post, Chicago Sun Times, Dallas Morning News.
I have received a number of letters from Delawareans about the
nomination of Mr. Pruitt to lead the EPA. For the record, as of I guess
last night, my office had received a total of seven letters, emails, or
faxes supporting Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I guess this is from all
sources, not just Delaware. But we have gotten seven letters supporting
Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I received 1,880 letters opposing his
nomination. That is pretty amazing. We don't get this kind of volume of
letters, emails, or faxes, but 1,880 opposed, 7 letters supporting.
But it is not just Delawareans who are worried about the idea of Mr.
Pruitt at the helm of EPA; over the past 3 months, editorial boards
across our country have expressed their own serious concerns about this
nominee as well.
I want to share a few of those with my colleagues and the world this
morning. Back in December, the New York Times wrote these words. I will
read them. This is from December, a couple of months ago:

Had Donald Trump spent an entire year scouring the country
for someone to weaken clean air and clean water laws and
repudiate America's leadership role in the global battle
against climate change, he could not have found a more
suitable candidate than Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney
General.

That is a pretty bold charge. The editorial describes Mr. Pruitt's
nomination--it goes on to say ``an aggressively bad choice''; ``a poke
in the eye to a long history of bipartisan cooperation on environmental
issues.''
Again, the EPA was not created in a law signed by a Democrat, it was
by a Republican.
The Times goes on to say ``bad choice''; ``a poke in the eye . . . to
a nation that has come to depend on an agency for healthy air and
drinkable water.''
And to the 195 countries that agreed in Paris last year to reduce
their emissions, climate-changing greenhouse gas, in the belief that
the United States should show the way, the Times concludes with these
words: ``Mr. Pruitt is the wrong person to lead an agency charged with
the custody of the nation's environment.''
The Senate cares about public good and needs to send his nomination
to the dustbin.
But I know that not everyone is a huge fan of the New York Times
these days, so let's move a little further north. Let's go up to Maine.
They have a paper up there called the Bangor Daily News. I have a
poster from them as well. Last month, the Bangor Daily News Editorial
Board wrote these words. Again, this is last month:

As attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has been openly
hostile to the EPA's mission of protecting human health by
regulating dangerous pollutants, such as mercury and carbon
dioxide. Someone who has repeatedly tried to prevent the EPA
from doing its job surely should be disqualified from
overseeing the agency.

You know, we generally believe that Presidents have wide latitude in
choosing the members of their Cabinet. I think Governors should have
wide latitude. As a former Governor, I said to our Delaware
Legislature: I have been elected; give me the opportunity to put
together my own team and judge us on our performance.
However, some nominees of some Presidents are so--probably Democrats
and Republicans, but especially in this case, with this President--some
nominees are so unqualified or philosophically unfit that Senators
should use their constitutional powers to reject them. Scott Pruitt,
President Donald Trump's pick to head the EPA, is one of those
nominees.
I voted for more of the nominees of this President than against.
Several of them are quite good. I serve on a committee called Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs. To succeed Secretary Jeh Johnson,
the President nominated retired Marine general John Francis Kelly, who
was a terrific soldier, marine, leader for our country, and will be a
great Secretary. I wish they were all of his caliber. I wish they were.
The Bangor paper went on to write:

Critics of the EPA tend to focus on rules and laws that the
agency is involved in writing that protect little-known
animals or landscapes, such as wetlands. But, the agency's
primary mission is to safeguard the health of Americans
through landmark laws such as Clean Water Act and Clean Air
Act.

Finally at the Bangor paper, they got to what is really at stake with
Scott Pruitt at the head of EPA when we have a President who has
repeatedly said he would like to get rid of the EPA in almost every
forum. This is what they said at the Bangor News:

We are under no illusions that Mr. Trump is suddenly going
to become a champion of environmental protection, even if
that is synonymous with protecting human life. But Pruitt is
so hostile to the EPA's core mission that putting him in
charge would move the United States dangerously backwards.

But it is not just the east coast editorial boards that are worried
about Scott Pruitt's nomination. Let's go to the west coast, the L.A.
Times in California, the State that has led the way in environmental
protection. The L.A. Times Editorial Board wrote--let's see if we have
a date. It is February 4, this month. This is what they wrote:

Yes, Trump won the election, and as president, he's
entitled to appoint people who reflect his political views.
But when the president's policies and appointees pose such a
fundamental threat to the nation, even a Senate controlled by
his fellow Republicans--whose first loyalty should be to the
people of the United States--must put the nation's best
interests ahead of party loyalty.

They continue at the L.A. Times and say:

Pruitt wouldn't run the agency as just another small-
government Republican interested in paring excessive
limitations on business. He actually disagrees with the
fundamental mission of the EPA. He has argued that the
federal government should play a lesser role in environmental
protection, and that primary control should be given to the
states.

That is wrongheaded. Putting West Virginia, my native State, in
charge of

[[Page S1350]]

its coal industry or Texas in charge of its oil industry would lead to
horrific environmental damage, not just there but in the neighboring
States downwind and downstream, according to the L.A. Times Editorial
Board.
The L.A. Times Editorial concludes by saying:

Putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA, however, poses an
irreversible risk to the planet, and the Senate needs to
ensure that doesn't happen.

It is not just the coastal editorial boards that have opposed Mr.
Pruitt. The Denver Post noted that--these are their words from 2 months
ago, December 8, 2016:

It looks like Trump truly does wish to dismantle the EPA.
His pick of Scott Pruitt to lead it strikes us as
unnecessarily reckless, and we urge the Senate to deny
confirmation and to demand a better way forward.

It is not on the poster, but the Denver paper went on to add: Does
the Nation really want a Big Oil mouthpiece running the agency that's
charged with the laudable task of keeping our air and water safe?
Let's head up to Chicago, where the Sun Times was editorializing in
the great State of Illinois. The Chicago Sun Times Editorial Board--
let's see what we have for a date. It looks like December 8, a couple
of months ago. This is what they said:

We are living in a time that calls for stepping up efforts
across the board to protect our environment for future
generations.
Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed
Scott Pruitt, an open foe of environmental initiatives, to
head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That
demonstrates a callous disregard for the health of our nation
and planet just as rapid technological advances hold out hope
for avoiding the worst effects of climate change.

It went on to say:

During his campaign, Trump said he would dismantle
President Barrack Obama's environmental policies and pull the
United States out of the 195-nation Paris accord to reduce
greenhouse gases and climate change. After the election,
Trump moderated his tone, saying he has an open mind about
climate change. His appointment of Pruitt, however, suggests
that if he's open to anything, it's strictly more pollution.

They concluded with these words:

At a time when serious scientists worry about cataclysmic
disasters threatened by climate change, we can't afford to
put our future in the hands of an apologist for the fossil
fuel industry. America needs an EPA chief who understands the
value of environmental successes we have achieved and the
critical importance of building on them.

But perhaps these aren't convincing enough. Travel with me down to
Texas because they have a problem even in Texas, in the Lone Star
State. One of the newspapers there, the Dallas Morning News, wrote just
last week:

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a veteran of a
years-long courthouse campaign to undermine the Environmental
Protection Agency, is the wrong choice to lead the agency
under President Donald Trump. It's hard to imagine a worse
choice.

They highlighted the long-term impact of putting Mr. Pruitt in charge
of the EPA. Here is what they said:

The post of EPA administrator is a critical one, and
nowhere is that more tangible than here in energy-rich Texas.

Again, this is the Dallas Morning News:

Many industry voices have already raised toasts to Pruitt's
nomination, concluding that his plans to eviscerate the EPA's
regulatory oversight of oil and gas companies, and other
polluters, will strengthen the state's economic fortunes.

The Morning News went on to write that the Senators from Texas must
``look beyond the short-sighted calculus and vote in the long-term
interests of Texas. Put simply, Texas' economy will be stronger over
time if its environment is cleaner and if its people are healthier.''
This is just one of a handful of the editorial boards that have
raised serious and substantive objections to Mr. Pruitt's nomination,
and for very good reason. They don't just come from the Northeast or
from the east coast, they don't just come from the Southeast or the
Midwest; they come from the west coast and even Texas itself. We ought
to listen to them. We ought to listen to them. They are not all wrong.
In fact, I fear they are right.

With that, I see we have been joined on the floor by a young man from
Connecticut who came to share some of his own thoughts with us on these
important topics.
I just want to thank him for the good work he does in so many areas.
He and I have been partners together on trying to make sure the people
of this country have access to affordable healthcare, and we get better
results for less money, and I applaud him for those efforts, as he
knows probably better than I, to try to ensure that people are healthy.
It is not enough just to provide healthcare for them when they get
sick. We call that sick care. We try to make sure we are doing things
up front to prevent people from getting sick, to enable them to stay
healthy. A lot of that really leads right to the work of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Leadership is so important in everything we do. It is the most
critical factor in everything. Leadership is the key to the success of
any organization, large or small, that I have ever been a part of or
observed. I don't care if it is a business, I don't care if it is a
church, I don't care if it is a school, I don't care if it is a
military unit, a sports team, or the U.S. Senate, leadership is key.
The EPA is key.
Show me enlightened, well-qualified leadership, and I will show you a
successful operation. We need to be real careful in making sure the EPA
has the kind of leadership that will lead them and our Nation well into
the future.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Barrasso). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. President.
Once again, let me extend my gratitude to all of the staff who are
pulling yet another overnight. I know this isn't easy, and I feel like
every time we have done one of these I have been on the floor during
the late night or very early morning hours to express my gratitude to
those who are making this possible.
While I am grateful for those who are here, I think it is also
incredibly important and vital that we are here. This is exceptional to
have so many late nights, to have pushed through the evenings, to stay
in session 24 hours and 48 hours at a time. I understand that last week
we engaged in the longest session--second longest continuous session in
the history of the Chamber, and I think we are doing so because we are
living through truly exceptional times today.
We are living through a moment where this administration is simply
not prepared to govern, and many of the individuals who are being
appointed to Cabinet positions, being selected to serve in this
administration simply aren't ready to get the job done.
We saw that with respect to Michael Flynn, who was named to quite
possibly the most important position in the national security Cabinet.
The National Security Advisor is, on most days, the first person and
the last person the President talks to about national security, about
protecting the Nation. Many of us raised alarm bells when Mr. Flynn was
selected for the job because of his radical statements on Islam, his
questionable connections to Russia, having sat next to Vladimir Putin
in a celebration of Russian propaganda didn't seem right to us,
something didn't smell right to many of us. We expressed those
objections when Mr. Flynn was chosen. Our objections did not prevail,
and within 30 days Mr. Flynn was fired from his position. It is still
unclear as to why he was fired. The President was out in front of the
cameras, bizarrely defending Mr. Flynn to the cameras having just fired
him 30 days into the job, but it seems that it was some combination of
undermining a sitting President by attempting to coordinate with the
Russian Ambassador right after President Obama had levied sanctions on
Russia, potentially making some promises to the Russians that they
didn't have to worry about it because once the Trump administration got
into office, they would modify or lift those sanctions or perhaps it
was lying to the Vice President and others in the White House about
what the substance of those conversations were.
Regardless, within 30 days, maybe the most important person in the
security Cabinet, who many of us thought

[[Page S1351]]

was unqualified, was fired from his position in the shortest tenure
that anybody could discover for National Security Advisors.
More news in the last 48 hours is that there were a host of other
White House officials who were unceremoniously ushered out of the White
House because they couldn't pass their criminal background checks. Why
on earth they were in the White House working in positions if they
hadn't already taken criminal background checks, that is a very
important question we should get answers to, but yet another example of
selection of people to serve in sensitive posts who weren't ready for
the job.
Betsy DeVos wasn't ready for her confirmation hearing. She came to
the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and didn't know
the basic facts about Federal education law. She couldn't tell the
difference between measuring proficiency and measuring growth, and
maybe for most people you don't know the difference either, but if you
are going to be the Secretary of Education, you have to know the
difference between measuring for proficiency and measuring for growth.
She was confused about the Federal law that guarantees children with
disabilities an equal education. She told Senator Kaine and Senator
Hassan it would be OK for States to ignore that law or ignore that
protection. That actually is not the case. Every State has to observe
the individuals with disabilities law as it pertains to students.
Just this week, we had a nominee withdraw after a drip, drip, drip of
allegations regarding his personal conduct and his business practices
made it pretty clear that somebody whose restaurants are half the time
in violation of Federal labor laws, somebody who has employed
undocumented workers probably isn't suitable to be the chief protector
of workers in this country as the Secretary of the Department of Labor.
It just doesn't seem that a lot of thought has been put into some of
these selections.
So we are taking our time. We are using our prerogative as Members of
the minority party to make sure there is a full, complete debate on all
these nominees to make sure, at the very least, the American public
knows what they are getting.
Our worry is not just that these nominees are often woefully
unprepared for the job, it is that many of them appear to be fatally
compromised. I listened to a lot of what President Trump said on the
campaign trail, and I heard him spending a lot of time attacking the
way business had historically been done in Washington, DC. Maybe some
of us privately cheered him on when we heard him say that because we
have watched corporate America own this town for a long time.
I watched the drug industry essentially have veto power over health
policy in this town. I have watched the oil and gas industry run the
show. From a personal basis, nothing aggrieves me more than seeing the
gun industry get whatever they want from this Congress. If you have a
couple hundred million dollars of market capitalization and a good
lobbyist and a political action committee you can get a lot done in
Washington.
So maybe when I tried to think of that silver lining to the election
of Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States, something that
was deeply morally objectionable to me, it was that maybe there is a
possibility to take on some of these special interests, to say enough
is enough, the size of your wallet shouldn't have anything to do with
the amount of influence you command here, but then those hopes were
dashed as we watched who President Trump decided to nominate for the
Cabinet.
Over and over again, billionaires, sometimes millionaires, but more
often than not billionaires were selected for this Cabinet, many of
whom had ties to the very special interests or were members of the very
special interests that Donald Trump told people he was going to take on
when he became President of the United States.
So we had one of the biggest fast food operators being installed in
the Department of Labor--somebody who attacked workers and said that
break time was a nuisance, that robots should replace his employees, we
had an oil executive nominated to serve as our chief diplomat, and now
we have an individual who has very publicly and unapologetically done
the bidding of big energy companies being enlisted to be the chief
environmental protector in this country.
So we are here tonight because the nomination and selection of Scott
Pruitt to be the next Administrator of the EPA fits neatly into a
pattern of behavior by this administration in which very, very rich
people or people who have very close ties to powerful interests are
being put in the government, and our worry is that they are being put
there not to serve the American people but to serve those interests.
Scott Pruitt has a very interesting history of defending the oil and
gas industry, which I admit is important to his State of Oklahoma--more
important than it is in my State of Connecticut--but he has a very
interesting history of defending that industry against the EPA. Scott
Pruitt has sued the EPA to overturn standards to curb mercury and other
toxic air pollutants, standards that would prevent 11,000 premature
deaths and up to 130,000 asthma attacks per year.
He sued to void standards to reduce soot and smog pollution,
projecting to prevent up to 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, to prevent
34,000 premature deaths, and almost 400,000 asthma attacks every year.
He sued unsuccessfully to overturn the EPA's scientific danger
determination that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping air
pollutants are harmful, and he even sued to block water pollution into
the Chesapeake Bay which has no connection to Oklahoma.
Scott Pruitt has been a crusader. He has been a crusader on behalf of
the energy industry against environmental protection, and he would
probably tell you there is a choice to be made between protecting our
environment and protecting our economy. That is ridiculous. That is
patently ridiculous.
If we don't protect our planet, if we don't protect the quality of
our air and the quality of our water, there will be no planet for
businesses to grow in, and every kid who suffers through a lifetime of
asthma is a fundamentally less productive worker to be able to add
value to the American economy. When you are attacking health standards
that would reduce asthma attacks by over 500,000 a year, you are
attacking the economy, not just the environment.
It is really hard for a kid to learn and become an entrepreneur or a
business creator if they are not healthy. Frankly, it is really hard
for a family to be able to manage their own economic affairs when they
have kids who are that unhealthy. So Scott Pruitt, in continuing to
attack the EPA, continuing to stand up for the oil and gas industry, is
weakening our economy.
Maybe even more importantly, when you are standing up for only one
segment of the energy industry, you are ignoring all the potential jobs
that come through a true energy transformation. I get it that today
there are a lot of oil jobs in Oklahoma, but there could also be a lot
of wind and solar and advanced battery and fuel cell jobs in his State
as well. Frankly, as you look at the jobs that will be created over the
next 50 to 100 years, not just in this country but across the globe,
the real job growth in the energy sector is not just going to be in the
oil and gas sector, it is going to be in this broader renewable energy
sector.
I don't know if these statistics are up to date, but a few years ago,
I read that, of the top 10 solar companies in the world, the United
States has one of them; of the top 10 wind turbine companies in the
world, the United States has one; and of the top 10 advanced battery
companies in the world, the United States has two. There are going to
be millions and millions of jobs to be had all across the world in the
renewable energy economy.
So long as our energy policy is only about protecting oil and gas and
coal and not about truly advancing renewable energy, we are hurting our
economy; we are preventing massive job creation from happening; and we
are letting other countries eat our lunch because 9 out of those 10 top
wind turbine companies and top solar companies and 8 out of those top
10 advanced battery companies are in other countries--other countries
that have decided to have policies that create internal markets for
those new renewable technologies, unlike here in the United States.

[[Page S1352]]

Germany is pumping out wind turbines and is selling them all over the
globe, not because Germany has any more wind than the United States but
because they have decided to pursue a policy in which they give
advantage to those renewable energy companies. The United States has
decided to pursue policies, by and large, through giving advantage to
fossil fuel companies.
In making his name as a crusader against the EPA, not only is Scott
Pruitt endangering the health of our kids, but he is endangering the
health of our economy as well. It is not guesswork when it comes to the
connection of Scott Pruitt to the industry. If he had really studied
the facts and if he had sat down and sort of weighed the benefits of
the industry's claims against the benefits of the claims of 99 percent
of the scientists in this country, it would be worth a listen.
But, as attorney general of Oklahoma, he sent a letter to the EPA,
skewering its efforts to limit methane leaks from oil and gas
companies. He didn't write the letter. Nobody on his staff wrote the
letter. Oklahoma's Devon Energy Corporation wrote the letter. Pruitt's
office changed a few words and sent it on to the EPA on the attorney
general's stationery. That is how close the relationship is between
Scott Pruitt and these energy companies. He just takes what they
write--what they say--and forwards it on under his own signature. If
you were to do that in a classroom, that would be plagiarism, and you
would get kicked out of school; but if you were to do that as the
attorney general of Oklahoma, you would get nominated to be the
Administrator of the EPA.
It might get a lot worse. You might find out that it is a lot worse
on Tuesday of next week because, for some reason, Scott Pruitt has been
hiding email correspondence between his office and these energy
companies. He has put up roadblock after roadblock to try to stop
freedom of information requests to get these emails, this
correspondence.
Finally, yesterday, a judge ruled that you cannot stop that
information from coming out--they are public documents--and on Tuesday
of next week, they are going to be made public. I don't know what they
were going to say, but as I suspect with Donald Trump's tax returns,
when you are expending great effort to hide something from the American
public, there is probably a reason you are hiding those things. There
is something incredibly damaging, embarrassing, or illegal in those tax
returns, and there is, probably, something very damaging, embarrassing,
or illegal in those emails.
So we are rushing through a nomination of Scott Pruitt tomorrow,
which will not allow us to see this email correspondence that is going
to come out next week. That is a shame because it, likely, will show us
how close that connection has been between the next Administrator of
the EPA and the energy companies that he has been regulating and will
be charged to regulate.
I get really concerned about Scott Pruitt when I think about the kids
in my State. I will tell you about one very specific way in which I
think about it, and then I will talk a little bit more broadly.
We have talked a lot about lead, mostly in the context of this
tragedy that has played out in Flint, MI, but, in Connecticut, the
tragedy of lead poisoning plays out every single day. Why? Because we
have really old housing stock; we have old infrastructure; we have lead
that is in paint; we have lead that is in pipes; we have lead that is
in fixtures that exist in old homes.
While our State has been just plugging along, trying to do better to
remediate these old homes and clean up lead and test kids earlier, lead
poisoning has been a reality for us in Connecticut for a very, very
long time. Boy, there are a lot of awful things that can happen to you
as a kid in this country, but lead poisoning is at the top of the list.
Watching a family go through the horror of serious lead poisoning is
nothing that you want to witness because, once lead gets into your
system--once it gets trapped inside your brain--it is impossible to
reverse.
In his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt was asked whether there was
any safe level of lead in drinking water. If you are going to be the
Administrator of the EPA, you should probably know the answer to that
question. The answer is, no, there is no safe level of lead in drinking
water. Given all of the tumult and attention over what happened in
Flint, you would think that would be something he would be prepared
for. His response was: ``That's something I have not reviewed nor know
about.''
Lead is a neurotoxin that can have devastating, long-term effects on
the lives of children. The correct answer, of course, is that there is
no level of lead that is safe in drinking water.
I don't want to be too tough on him because I don't expect somebody
who hasn't spent his lifetime in the field to know every answer about
environmental standards, but this one was a pretty important one. For
those of us who do think he is, ultimately, going to do the bidding of
industry rather than the bidding of kids, not having an awareness about
something as simple as acceptable lead levels in water makes us wonder
whether he is really prepared to do his homework because on the other
side of the lead fight are special interests. This is one that has
special interests too. Whether it be the home builders or other folks
who might have to pay a little bit of money out of their pockets to fix
up old homes, there are people who are not always with us on this.
More broadly, I worry about my kids. My kids are not going to suffer
from lead poisoning, but if we don't get serious about the pace of
climate change now--in the next 5 to 10 years--the problem may not be
available to solve for my kids. It may be too late, once they become of
age, to try to do something about it as a public servant, as a
scientist, as an activist. Any scientist can explain the reason for
that.
The reason is that, for many greenhouse pollutants--carbon dioxide,
in particular--as they get released into the atmosphere, they stay, and
they continue to warm--heat up--as time goes on. There are some
pollutants that don't act that way. There are these things called fast-
acting climate pollutants, like methane, frankly, that are released
into the atmosphere, that are powerful heaters for a short period of
time, but then they dissipate. Carbon dioxide is different. That one
sticks around forever and ever--a long, long time--and continues to
heat and continues to heat and continues to heat. So, if you don't
reverse the trajectory of the human contribution to climate change
soon, it may be too late.
As folks have read, just in the last 60 days, that phenomenon is
playing out in parts of the globe that are already at a pace that was
unimaginable just 5 years ago. In the Arctic, we are seeing just
unthinkable warming.
I don't make policy by anecdote, but about a year ago, I was in the
Arctic. I was on a submarine, doing an exploration under the ice--a
truly amazing thing to be a part of. I was on the USS Hartford, which
was a ship that was made in Connecticut, and the port is in
Connecticut. We were up there as part of an exercise called ICEX, which
was an exercise to try to understand what is happening in the Arctic so
as to try to understand what the implications are for humans of this
massive melting of arctic ice.
There were supposed to be two weekends of exercises in which there
was a camp on a very stable piece of ice. Experiments were happening at
the camp, and a submarine was helping to engage in those experiments.
We were part of the first weekend's exercise. Then, the next weekend,
another group of Congressmen was going up to witness that second
weekend's exercise. The second group of Congressmen did not make it.
They were literally on a van to the plane when they were told there was
an emergency evacuation of the camp because the ice was melting
underneath the camp. This was a spot that was picked because of how
stable they thought it was. In the short period of time in which the
camp had existed on the ice that March, it had started to break up and
melt underneath them, and they had to engage in an emergency
evacuation.
That is just one story. I understand we don't legislate or regulate
by anecdote, but when you piece it together with all of the other
evidence that tells you that every single year is the warmest on
record, that shows you this massive trend line of melting in the
Arctic. Even scientists who were of that 1 percent, who were sort of
judged or deemed to be climate skeptics, are now

[[Page S1353]]

saying: Whoa, there is clearly something nonnatural happening in the
Arctic, resulting in this massive melt that happens season after
season.
If that melt that is being mirrored in Antarctica continues at this
pace, it will be too late for my kids to do something about it. In my
State of Connecticut, a coastal State--a State in which the majority of
our economic assets are buffered right up against the water of the Long
Island Sound--we cannot survive in a world in which sea level rise
doubles compared to what it has been over the last 1,000 years.
We cannot survive in a world in which, by the end of this century,
the average temperatures will be 8 degrees higher than they are today.
When I came to Congress in 2007, the worst case estimates were that, by
the end of this century, the global temperature rise would be 6 to 8
degrees beyond what it is today. Those are now mainstream estimates. It
is not politicians, and it is not activists. Those are scientists--
mainstream scientists--who are making those estimates. Yet, we are
going to put somebody into the EPA who proudly has been a mouthpiece
for the idea that climate change is a hoax--a hoax.

There is this tiny group of scientists who say: Well, it is not
really clear whether human activity is leading to climate change. There
is a tiny group of scientists who say that. Ninety percent of
scientists agree that humans are contributing to climate change.
But Scott Pruitt goes further than that. Scott Pruitt has said that
climate change--he has said it over and over again--that climate change
is a hoax. What does that mean? Does that mean it is an intentional
campaign by people to try to fool people into believing that climate
change is happening? That is an extreme position. I don't even know how
you explain what the genesis of the hoax is. What benefit do people get
from trying to create this fiction? And of all the people out there who
could possibly be the EPA Administrator, President Trump chose someone
who calls climate change a hoax.
He had a confirmation conversion. He backtracked on that and said
something before the committee about not being completely sure about
the human contribution to climate change, but acknowledging that it
probably exists. It is not the first confirmation conversion we have
had. The Presiding Officer and I were at a very interesting hearing
yesterday in which the nominee to be Ambassador to Israel essentially
recanted everything he had ever said that was strong in tone about
people he disagreed with on the position of U.S.-Israel relations.
So Scott Pruitt has changed his rhetoric in order to get confirmed.
But he said that climate change is a hoax enough times to understand
that likely, in his gut, that is what he still believes. It was a
convenient position to have if you were an attorney general concerned
with doing the bidding of big energy companies and special interests,
which fed into their narrative as well.
These are exceptional times. I am sorry that we are back on the floor
overnight again. But we are deeply concerned that this special interest
Cabinet--this billionaire Cabinet--is not being put in place to do
right for the American people. It is being put in place to do right for
big corporations that don't need any more allies here in Washington.
For all the rhetoric about upsetting the way things are done in
Washington, President Trump is doubling down on special interest
influence by handing them the keys to the Secretary's offices and major
Departments, now including the Environmental Protection Agency.
That was not a President at that press conference yesterday. That was
hard to watch, I imagine for both Democrats and Republicans. It was not
a higher calling to public service for anybody in this country. Maybe
there was 20 percent of the President's base that the press conference
played to, but that was not an advertisement for America.
These are exceptional times, and they do command those of us who are
worried about the direction of this country to use all the power we
have to try to get the facts out there and on the record.
I was standing next to Senator Angus King at a press conference
shortly after we were sworn in, talking about this issue of climate
change and our responsibility as public servants to protect the quality
of our air and the quality of our water. We were recalling how this
wasn't as partisan an issue 40 years ago as it is today.
The EPA was established under a Republican President. The Clean Water
Act and the Clean Air Act had bipartisan support. There was a time in
which Republicans were for environmental protection, and now we are
nominating somebody to be the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency who made his name fighting environmental protection,
who made his name suing the Agency that was established by a Republican
President, who has called the global climate change phenomenon,
supported by 99 percent of scientists, a hoax.
It is disturbing to many of us how deeply politicized this issue is
because it used to be relatively nonpartisan. It used to be that for
all of the things we disagreed on, we at least recognized that one of
our responsibilities as stewards of this sphere that we live on is to
make sure that it exists in the same shape that it is today for our
kids.
What Angus King said that day in that press conference, as always,
stayed with me. Senator King said that in Maine they have the
rototiller rule. If you borrow a rototiller or, frankly, any piece of
equipment from your neighbor, you have an obligation when you are done
with it to return that piece of equipment to your neighbor, or return
that rototiller to your neighbor, in at least as good a condition as
you found it. That makes sense. You borrowed the rototiller. If you
break it you probably should fix it before you hand it back or you just
use it in a way so that you are careful with it so that you don't break
it, so that when you give it back to your neighbor, it is in that same
condition. Senator King applied that standard to the standard that we
should hold ourselves to when it comes to protecting this planet.
My kids are going to inherit this planet. My grandkids, hopefully,
will inherent it from them. Our charge should be to hand this planet to
our kids in at least as good a shape as we found it. If we break it, if
we damage it, we should fix it before we hand it over.
We are breaking this planet right now. We are releasing so much
pollution into the atmosphere to have compromised its integrity for the
next generation. We have broken the rototiller, and the rototiller rule
tells you that before you give it back to your neighbor, you should fix
it. And we have it in our power to do it.
When we damaged the ozone layer through the release of CFCs, we got
together and fixed that problem. We engaged in a global conversation to
regulate CFCs through something called the Montreal protocol. We were
able to attack that problem, fix it at no significant cost to the
economy, and show that if we really do care about the quality of this
globe, there is nothing that is outside of our power. There is no
choice to be made between observing the rototiller rule--protecting our
planet--and growing our economy.
But if Scott Pruitt becomes the next Administrator of EPA and the oil
companies and the gas companies essentially get whatever they want,
well, their bottom lines probably will be improved, shareholders in
those companies will probably do a little bit better, but our kids'
health, our larger economy's future will be compromised.
So that is why we are here on the floor objecting to Mr. Pruitt's
nomination. That is why we have asked for this nomination to be delayed
until later next week so that we can see what is in these emails, where
we already have some pretty concerning evidence of this deep connection
between Mr. Pruitt and the companies he will regulate at EPA--a letter
that they wrote for him that he sent under his name. What if there is
more information like that in this correspondence?
What if there is more evidence that he, as attorney general, was just
a mouthpiece for industry rather than a mouthpiece for consumers? What
if that is predictive of his behavior at EPA? I think that would be
something that both Democrats and Republicans would be concerned with
because I think I know my colleagues, and while my colleagues have
certainly been more protective of industries' interests than Democrats
have been, we both agree that the industry shouldn't have

[[Page S1354]]

an unnatural advantage in these agencies above the public interest. I
am pretty sure we agree on that. And in just 4 short days, we will get
a better understanding as to whether that is definitively the case for
Scott Pruitt.
So I would urge my colleagues to either delay this vote that is
happening later today or to vote against the nomination.
I appreciate, again, everyone who has been part of facilitating
another very late night on the floor.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I come to the floor to convey my
wholehearted opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt as
Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.
The EPA, at its core, is an Agency established to protect the
environment and the public health of our Nation. This Agency looks to
establish policies and guidelines that would benefit all Americans--and
in essence is not an Agency of partisanship. In fact, the EPA was
created through legislation led by a Republican President, Richard M.
Nixon, and enacted by a bipartisan Congress in 1970.
The EPA has a duty to protect the air we breathe, the water we drink,
and the environment we hope to pass on to future generations. In
accomplishing this mission, it enforces some of our most valued laws
like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which have been in effect
for more than 30 years.
Unfortunately, this President asked the U.S. Senate to confirm a
nominee who has dedicated his career to undermining the very Agency he
is asked to lead. Mr. Pruitt's record and consistent failure to commit
to being a fair Administrator of the EPA further demonstrates that the
Trump administration's agenda is to weaken protections that guarantee
every American access to clean air and clean water. From his actions as
attorney general of Oklahoma up to his testimony at his hearing before
the Environment and Public Works Committee, it is clear Mr. Pruitt is
simply unqualified.
I express my strong concerns, as a Senator from California, a global
leader in environmental protections that allow our 39 million residents
to live healthy lives. It is my hope that with similar smart Federal
regulations, which are led by the EPA, our Nation can enjoy these same
benefits that I have seen Californians experience firsthand.
Californians have always been and will continue to be proud of our
environmental leadership. In 1977, California passed the first energy
efficiency standards in the country. Our friends from the States of
Florida, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York quickly followed
suit. This set a precedent. Federal officials agreed that having
responsible renewable energy guidelines should be a priority.
Ten years later, the EPA implemented national standards across the
United States, saving a tremendous amount of energy, sustaining our
precious environment and resources for future generations, and
providing financial benefits for families and households across the
country.
To put it into perspective, one of the national energy standards for
refrigerators--that was the result of a policy initially enacted in
California--has saved more than 130,000 megawatts of electricity to
date. This is equivalent to the production of energy that roughly 250
powerplants might produce. This example is not a rare occurrence.
Energy policies have continued to be adopted from smart initiatives
started in various States.
Starting as early as 1978, California passed an energy efficiency
standard for newly constructed buildings. This standard is now adopted
not only in our Nation but worldwide. The State legislature listened to
the objective and factual data from scientists on the dangers of
climate change and, as a result, passed the California Global Warming
Solutions Act of 2006, which requires California to reduce its total
greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. We created the California Cap-and-
Trade Program, which implemented an innovative, market-based system to
allow companies to continue to produce while also helping to reduce
emissions; instituted a low-carbon fuel standard, which reduced the
carbon intensity of all transportation fuels in California. We passed
the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, which
urged local transportation planning agencies to consider the statewide
greenhouse reduction standards and goals in their long-term
transportation plan, and we set a renewable portfolio standard, which
implored retail sellers of electricity to provide 33 percent of their
electricity from renewable resources by 2020 and 50 percent by 2030.
We are proud indeed of what we have accomplished in California, but
the importance of this issue goes beyond just the environment. It is an
economic issue, and it has been undeniable in helping California grow
to be the sixth largest economy in the world. California shows that a
healthy environment and a healthy economy and the choice between the
two is a false choice. We can have both. From 1990 to 2014,
California's population and economy grew while achieving a 36-percent
drop in emissions per gross domestic product. This clearly demonstrates
that you can successfully have economic growth and reduce carbon
intensity. The State has done a great job of creating employment
through the promotion of clean energy technology and green economies. A
report by the University of California Labor Center found that
the California renewable portfolio standards contributed to the
creation of 25,500 hours for what was referred to as ``blue-collar''
job opportunities and 7,200 hours of what was referred to as ``white-
collar'' jobs.

Most importantly, the environmental laws that the EPA enforces
protects the health of future generations. Science has shown that
children living in communities with a higher concentration of
particulate matter developed respiratory difficulties and those
children living in regions with higher ozone levels were more likely to
develop asthma and miss school.
This is only a small part of the impact that ignoring the protections
of our environment can cause to the ones we love most. On that point,
of children missing school because of health concerns, there is a
significance to this because of a connection between what we need to do
to educate our population and also what we see in the criminal justice
system.
For example, it is well known and established the significance of a
third grade reading level. By the end of the third grade, if the child
is not at the third grade reading level, they literally drop off
because, when we think about it, we know before third grade a child is
learning how to read, and then comprehension kicks in, and they are
reading to learn. If they have not learned how to read, they cannot
read to learn and they drop off.
What is the connection between that and the concern we have about
pollution in the air and water? Well, there is a connection between
pollution in the air and asthma rates. Asthma causes children to miss
school. What we know is that we have seen that an elementary school
truant is three to four times more likely to be a high school dropout;
82 percent of the prisoners in the United States are high school
dropouts; African-American men between the ages of 30 and 34, if he is
a high school dropout, is two-thirds likely to be in jail, have been in
jail, or dead. There is a real connection between elementary school
truancy and what we see in public safety systems. What we also know is
that it costs money when children miss school. It costs us money in
terms of the money that schools miss out on because they are not being
reimbursed for attendance every day. All of these issues are connected.
As a former attorney general, I have worked to enforce California's
cutting-edge environmental laws. This is what an attorney general
should do and is obligated to do as a representative of her State.
Without reservation, I can say I am proud of the work of my office--of
my former office, the California Department of Justice, and the work
that is happening and has happened throughout the years doing the right
thing for the people of the State and for the environment.

[[Page S1355]]

In February of 2011, I filed an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit
Court to support the efforts of the Port of Los Angeles to reduce air
pollution through its Clean Trucks Program. In 2011, I had the pleasure
of being a voice to protect an area of Southern California known as
Mira Loma Village, a town of hard-working people, by representing them
in a lawsuit to assure that a project would not significantly
deteriorate the air quality in their community.
I had been hearing stories of the grandmothers in that community for
years asking that they would be heard. I had been hearing for years,
before I visited Mira Loma, about the fact that studies showed the
children of that community had the lowest rate of lung development of
any region in that part of California. There was a serious concern
about the pollution in the air and the children of that community and
their ability to be healthy.
So this is what we did and what I was able to do as the attorney
general of the State that year. We met them with the developers in that
community, we sat down, and we had some tough discussions, but we
agreed that there had to be mitigation. They had to reduce the
emissions in that community that resulted in the public health problems
for that community. Two years later, that resulted in the city and the
developer moving forward with the project while implementing measures
to protect the residents from being exposed to diesel contamination.
Litigation was critical. The role of the attorney general to be able to
intervene and be a voice for that community and so many voiceless and
vulnerable people was critical.
In June of 2014, as attorney general of California, I publicly
opposed the lack of environmental review for the expansion of a Chevron
refinery project in a place called Richmond, CA, and demanded they
consider the public health of the nearby residents.
These are examples of the role and responsibility of a State attorney
general to take seriously their oath in terms of protecting the health
and welfare of the residents of their State. I offer these examples to
further support the concerns we have that this nominee--when he has
held such an important position and has taken an oath to represent the
people--has failed to perform his duties. I would suggest that his past
is prologue for the future. His past is an indication of what he will
do if he is confirmed as the next head of the EPA.
I would hope that instead we would have a nominee--someone who would
head these most important agencies in our government--who could say the
same thing about their record as I am proud to say about the record of
the California Department of Justice.
In my opinion, our current nominee cannot in good conscience speak to
the same type of record. Instead, Mr. Pruitt has talked about how he
wants to protect States from what he believes is ``overreach'' of the
Federal Government. His commitment to what he would call States' rights
is so strident that a December 6, 2014, New York Times article reported
that Mr. Pruitt has a painting in his office ``that shows local
authorities with rifles at the ready confronting outsiders during the
land rush era.'' He also established what he described and named as a
Federalism Unit in the Oklahoma attorney general's office that was
committed to fighting against Federal regulations. When he came before
the Environment and Public Works Committee for his confirmation
hearing, of which I am a Member, Mr. Pruitt stated that ``it is our
state regulators who oftentimes best understand the local needs and
uniqueness of our environmental challenges.'' He then went on to speak
about how States ``possess the resources and the uniqueness of our
environmental challenges.''
These statements might lead one to believe that Mr. Pruitt would be
in support of any opportunity possible to give power back to the States
to create environmental regulations. However, when I asked Mr. Pruitt
at the committee, when he came before us, if he would commit then to
upholding California's right to set its own vehicle emission standards,
he would not commit to doing so.
I will remind this body that the EPA has a long tradition of
respecting California's and other States' ability to set higher
standards where they can control the emissions and the greenhouse gas
emissions that as we have mentioned before, directly have an impact on
the health and well-being of the residents of our State and
particularly the children and the elderly of our States.
Under the Clean Air Act, California has set its own standards for how
it wants to regulate vehicle emissions. We have done this for decades
now, and previous EPA Administrators have upheld California's right to
set them.
Although there is precedence for doing so, Mr. Pruitt would not
commit to granting California the waiver to allow my State to continue
to set its own vehicle emissions standards. This is simply
unacceptable.
This is a blatant double standard for someone who claims to be
committed to breaking down regulations at the Federal level and giving
power back to the States. In fact, it makes me wonder how truly
committed Mr. Pruitt is to States' rights or if States' rights are just
a convenient argument for him in order to pursue actions that are
beneficial to industries that pollute instead of the residents and the
people of his State and, by extension, our country.
Just look at his record as attorney general of Oklahoma, a position
he used to challenge the laws of other States. As attorney general, he
challenged a California law when he joined a lawsuit that targeted a
referendum that California's voters approved in 2008 to require more
space in cages for egg-laying hens. That measure, California
proposition 2, prohibited the confinement of hens used to produce eggs
in California in any manner that does not allow them to turn around
freely, lie down, stand up, and fully extend their limbs. The law is
popular, and it was passed by the voters in my State by 63.5 percent.
In 2010, the California Legislature expanded that law to make it so
that it applied to all eggs sold in California.
Mr. Pruitt joined a lawsuit suing California over this law,
presumably because he did not like that a regulation approved by our
voters and affirmed by our State legislature would do a good job. He
just didn't like it. Mr. Pruitt's case was ultimately rejected by the
Federal appellate court because his lawsuit failed to demonstrate how
the California law presented a harm to his State. You would think that
a States' rights proponent would appreciate that one State passes a law
and it should be respected, especially when it doesn't create any harm
to his own State, but that was not the case.
Mr. Pruitt has filed seven lawsuits against the EPA that have since
been settled. In those lawsuits, he opposed the Clean Power Plan and
the Clean Water Act. He sued over regulations to make electricity-
generating powerplants install technology to curb air pollution. He
sued over a plan to reduce pollution from coal-fired powerplants and a
regulation aimed at reducing greenhouse gases. He sued and filed a
lawsuit that claimed that the EPA encourages environmental nonprofits
to bring lawsuits.
It is important to know that Mr. Pruitt lost six out of those seven
lawsuits. Mr. Pruitt is a baseball fan, as am I. I love my Giants. I
find it hard to believe that my San Francisco Giants would look at a
hitter who slogged through spring training with a .142 batting average
and have no concerns whatsoever calling him up to the big league
roster. Why does the U.S. Senate have a lower standard for reviewing a
nominee who would be charged with safeguarding human health and our
environment?
What about the opportunities Mr. Pruitt has had to defend the
interests of the people he was elected to represent? What about issues
that directly impact the people of Oklahoma?
In 2011, 49 States signed on to a $25 billion mortgage settlement.
There was only one State's attorney general who decided not to sign on.
I think you know where I am heading. That one attorney general was
Scott Pruitt. Mr. Pruitt said he didn't think it was the appropriate
role of the State attorney general to advocate for the homeowners of
their States but wanted to be sure to protect the banks instead.
As a former State's attorney general, I am here to say that the role
of an attorney general is to represent the people of your State. When
an injustice is committed to one person, an injustice is committed to
all of the residents of

[[Page S1356]]

your State. In fact, after doing the work of an attorney general over
the course of 7 years in California, I will tell you that every time we
filed a suit, that document, that complaint never read the name of the
victim versus the name of the offender. It always read the people
versus the offender because in our system of democracy and in our
system of justice as a country, we have rightly said that a harm
against any one of us is a harm against all of us. Mr. Pruitt has
failed to appreciate the significance of that point.
He has developed a long list of lawsuits filed. Through all of that
litigation, he has delivered very little for the people of Oklahoma--
the very people who elected him to represent them. Why should we expect
that he will protect the interests of all Americans and the environment
we all share?
During his 6-year tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott
Pruitt stated only in one instance--a lawsuit against Mahard Egg Farm--
could he recall initiating an independent lawsuit as attorney general
against private air polluters. It was later revealed that even this
claim was misleading, and it turned out it was his predecessor who had
done the legwork and initiated the proceedings, along with the
assistance of the EPA.
In the 2014 New York Times article, it was reported that Mr. Pruitt
used his official position as Oklahoma attorney general to protect the
interests of a private gas and petroleum company, Devon Energy, not the
people of Oklahoma. Using his official government position, Mr. Pruitt
sent a three-page letter to the EPA stating that Devon Energy did not
cause as much air pollution as was calculated by Federal regulators.
In open records of exchanged emails between Devon Energy and the
Oklahoma attorney general's office, it was discovered that the lawyers
at Devon Energy were the ones who actually drafted the letter and that
Mr. Pruitt used a nearly identical letter to express it as his State's
position. Following the letter, Devon Energy wrote to his office:

Outstanding! The timing of this letter is great given our
meeting with both the EPA and the White House.

``Outstanding,'' the energy company said--not the people of the State
of Oklahoma.
It is also unclear how far this abuse of power has gone. A lawsuit by
the Center for Media and Democracy has been filed in an Oklahoma
district court to release information on Mr. Pruitt's dealings as
attorney general. It is with great concern that we would try to rush
this nomination without these records coming to light. Senators should
have all the facts before us before we vote.
Should Mr. Pruitt be confirmed as EPA Administrator, I am deeply
concerned that he has refused to use his discretion to recuse himself
from litigation he was involved with in his role as Oklahoma attorney
general unless required to do so by the Ethics Commission.
I asked him about this during our hearing at the Environment and
Public Works Committee. I asked him if he would be willing to recuse
himself notwithstanding a finding by the Ethics Commission but based on
what is right and an appearance of conflict. He agreed, after many
questions, that he has the discretion--regardless of action, regardless
of waiting until the Ethics Commission rules--to recuse himself from
those lawsuits that he as attorney general of Oklahoma brought against
the Agency he wants to lead. He agreed he had the discretion and yet
failed to agree that he would exercise that discretion and recuse
himself because of an appearance of a conflict. That is simply
unacceptable.
It is so important that in our government, the public has confidence
in us, that they trust we will do the right thing, that they trust we
will use our discretion in an appropriate way. But this is a nominee
who has asked us to trust him to lead the EPA, the people's Agency that
has been charged with protecting the resources that are vital for all
human life. A nominee who has failed to represent his own constituents'
interests by making a career of partisanship is not the right nominee
for this office, period. He is a nominee who has lobbied for
corporations instead of the people he was charged with representing. He
is a nominee who has a clear record of using his position in a way that
has not been in the best interest of the people he serves.
There is evidence, unfortunately, of his record that is before us as
a body. We should take heed of this evidence. We should pay attention
to it, and we should not confirm this nominee to be the next head of
the EPA.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I lived in Palo Alto Park, that part of
the State. The Naval Air Station was there. It used to be called
Moffett Field. It is still there. I remember the hangars that we used
during the time we served on Active Duty.
I had the privilege of knowing a number of attorneys general from
California, and we are very pleased to be able to welcome Senator
Harris to our floor. Yesterday she gave her maiden address on the
Senate floor.
Thank you.
She is pretty good.
I would say that you are even better than I thought. That was
wonderful. Those were wonderful comments. I know our Presiding Offerer
is also the chairman of our committee and probably is not enjoying your
comments as much as I am, but I thought you were evenhanded and fair in
sharing that.
The Presiding Officer is a pretty good friend of mine, and I don't
know if he is a big baseball fan. I am. I love sports. I am a huge
Detroit Tigers fan. You are a Giants fan. The leadership in baseball is
critically important. It is important to have good infielders, good
outfielders, good pitchers, catchers, and so forth. What is really
important is to have great leadership and great leadership in terms of
the coaching staff. Leadership is always the most important ingredient
in every organization I have ever been a part of.
The Tigers just lost their owner, Mike Ilitch. He was a legendary
figure in Detroit in baseball. He passed away earlier this week at the
tender age of 86. It is a big loss for Motown and, frankly, for
baseball.
In terms of leadership, we wouldn't want to hire somebody to coach a
baseball team who was a football coach or someone who is great with a
basketball team. I don't doubt that Scott Pruitt a skillful lawyer. I
met his family. I like him. I think he is arguably a good dad and a
good husband. But it is a little bit like asking a pacifist to lead
something like the Department of Defense--may be a skillful person but
maybe just not the right person to do a particular job.
I thought you outlined that very well. I wanted to say welcome to the
big leagues. We are going to learn a lot from you.
I yield back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak on the
nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, whom I intend to support.
Over the past several weeks, we heard a number of Senators come to
the floor hour after hour, 24-hour sessions through the night--1
o'clock, 2 o'clock, 3 o'clock, 4 o'clock--in the morning and beyond, to
complain about this nominee or that nominee, to express their concern
about this nominee or that nominee. In fact, many times I think the
only reason there is opposition to a nominee is that they disagree with
a nominee because it wasn't Hillary Clinton who made the nomination.
We have heard countless people come to the floor today to talk about
their opposition to the Trump administration EPA. I have a picture on
the floor that shows the Obama EPA. This is a river in Colorado,
enjoyed by thousands of people each and every summer. This is a picture
of that same river under the Obama EPA. This was caused by 800,000
pounds of mineral and other waste going into the river because of a
mishandled EPA project. This wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald
Trump. This was the Obama EPA that did this. I only wish that my
colleagues who have come to the floor for the past several hours had
shown similar outrage when the Obama EPA did this to Colorado--
inflicted this kind of damage on people in Southwestern Colorado in the
Gold King

[[Page S1357]]

Mine spill. You want to talk about protecting States? Why didn't we
stand up and protect this river?

On August 5, 2015, the EPA caused this spill. They admit they caused
this spill, dumping 3 million gallons of toxic waste into Cement Creek
and into the Animas River. Most Americans remember seeing this river.
Most Americans remember seeing pictures of what this river looked like
across newspapers, across television stations in August of 2015. When I
visited South Korea, the President of South Korea asked me: How is the
river in Colorado that the EPA dumped toxic sludge into?
In fact, I saw this picture on the news just a couple of days ago.
Somebody was using it to complain about the Trump EPA administration.
Somebody was using it to attack Scott Pruitt. This picture had nothing
to do with Scott Pruitt. This was the EPA led by Gina McCarthy. My
response to the spill was that the EPA should be held accountable to
the same level at which the EPA holds private businesses accountable. I
think that is a pretty good standard. But if the EPA is going to make
sure that somebody lives up to a standard, then the EPA should live up
to the same standard--that basic standard for the EPA, because the
Agency caused this spill, and it simply must apply the same
requirements to itself that it does to a private company.
So it was with great disappointment, but very little surprise, that,
when the EPA decided to not subject itself to those same standards,
they walked away from the promises they made. Sure, the EPA had
standards under Barack Obama. They were double standards. The Obama
administration EPA's refusal to not receive and process the personal
injury or economic loss claims arising out of this spill of the Gold
King Mine in Southwest Colorado is appalling. I simply wish the outrage
was there when the EPA walked away from the people that it had injured
in Colorado. We haven't heard talk about it here.
We have heard a lot of complaints here, but nobody is saying they
should be paying for the damage in Colorado they created. After all, we
are discussing the EPA, which with the strike of a pen, and oftentimes
with very little input from those people who would be affected, uses
overly burdensome regulations and a heavyhanded enforcement to punish
private businesses.
Despite the assurances and promises of the then-EPA Administrator
Gina McCarthy that the Agency takes full responsibility of the Gold
King Mine spill, the Agency in 2017--weeks ago--turned its back on the
promises it made and denied paying claims for the harm they caused
Coloradans. Promises were broken to our neighbors downstream in New
Mexico and Utah, including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, the Ute
Mountain Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation.
Administrator McCarthy called me last month, just before the news
broke that the EPA would not be processing the claims of dozens of
individuals and businesses in Southwest Colorado under the Federal Tort
Claims Act against the Federal Government. The spill occurred in August
2015. Over a year later, and in the waning days of the Obama
administration, they turned their backs on their promises they made to
Colorado and notified us in the waning hours of an administration
saying: I am sorry. We are not going to help the individuals who are
harmed. This refusal to compensate for the spill is unacceptable and
wholly inconsistent with the EPA's commitment to take full
responsibility with the States, local and tribal governments and
communities.
This past election, voters said they wanted something different from
the last 8 years in Washington because what they experienced was not
working for the people--broken promise after broken promise. A year and
a half ago, the EPA caused the Gold King Mine spill, and the past
administration refused to make it right for Colorado. The status quo at
the EPA is not acceptable because broken promises are the status quo.
I have had earnest conversations with Mr. Pruitt over the past
several weeks about my sincere disappointment about those broken
promises, what we had to go through in Colorado, and what businesses
had to go through in Colorado as a result of the EPA spill.
You can imagine that in an area that is reliant on tourism, what
photographs of this in headlines across the country and in nightly news
stories can do to a tourism-based economy. Those kayakers we saw in
this chart had to shut the river down. Outfitters weren't allowed to be
on the river. Dollars were lost because guides couldn't get out there.
Booked trips that had already been paid for had been canceled. People
didn't go because of the EPA's spill. The EPA's refusal to pay for lost
property, lost economic opportunity, and lost business opportunity is
simply unacceptable.
In the earnest conversations I have had with Scott Pruitt, he has
promised to make it right. He has promised to stand up for the people
in Colorado. He has promised that he will make amends and pay for the
damages that the Obama administration refused to pay for. He assured me
that he is going to make it right, that he is going to work with the
people the EPA injured and those who experienced economic losses and
make sure that they are fully compensated. He agreed to come to
Colorado shortly after his confirmation to make sure that the people of
Colorado know that he will fulfill the promises that were failed under
the Obama administration.
I would also like to talk about another top legislative priority of
mine--passing Good Samaritan legislation. Good Samaritan legislation
would allow Good Samaritans, like the mining industry, State agencies,
local governments, nonprofits, and other groups the ability to clean up
the environment and improve water quality conditions around abandoned
mines. According to the Government Accountability Office, or the GAO,
it is estimated that there are more than 160,000 abandoned hard-rock
mines that exist across the United States, and at least 33,000 of these
mines pose environmental or safety concerns.
One of the immediate actions we can do in Congress to address this
toxic waste and improve our environment is to pass Good Samaritan
legislation. It has been decades that this Congress has tried. It has
been decades that this Congress has failed. It is time to start
succeeding and time to start cleaning up the environment.
The last time the Environment and Public Works Committee was able to
advance legislation on Good Samaritan was in 2006, from my
predecessors, Senators Wayne Allard and Ken Salazar. Unfortunately,
since 2006, this concept has been unsuccessful and caught in partisan
politics.
It is time to take steps forward for facilitating cleanup of the
Nation's abandoned mines to prevent more spills like the Gold King
Mine.
I have secured the commitment from Scott Pruitt to work with me on
this legislation at the EPA to get this done, to work with both sides
of the aisle to accomplish something, so that we can prevent this from
happening. I am not going to stop working until our constituents are
made whole from the EPA-caused spill at the Gold King Mine. I am not
going to stop working until we pass--and we have to continue working to
pass--the Good Samaritan legislation.
The 33,000 mines that pose a risk to the West is unacceptable. Our
citizens, our pristine environment, our waterways, our children--this
wasn't Scott Pruitt. This wasn't Donald Trump. This was an EPA under
the previous administration, led by Gina McCarthy and President Obama,
that walked away from the people of Colorado and the promises made. And
it heartens me greatly to know, at least, that we have an
administration that will move away from every promise abandoned to
fulfilling the promises of protecting our environment.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Daines). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, before I make a statement on Scott Pruitt,
to my colleague and friend from Colorado, I couldn't agree with you
more. What happened in Colorado was an environmental tragedy, and we
saw the photos. It is horrible. I don't know who is responsible for it,
but it appears to be a government agency, and they should be held
accountable. I will join you in that effort. I don't think there is any
Member who wouldn't join you in saying there ought to be justice done
here.

[[Page S1358]]

We shouldn't let them off the hook because they are EPA employees or
employees of the Federal government.
But I don't understand the leap in logic from that position to Scott
Pruitt. Scott Pruitt is a man who, as attorney general of Oklahoma, has
filed more than 14 lawsuits to restrict the authority of the EPA to
clean up rivers.
Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. DURBIN. I am happy to yield for the purpose of a question.
Mr. GARDNER. To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA admits they caused
this spill. Does the Senator from Illinois realize that the EPA then
failed to live up to that promise?
Mr. DURBIN. I said to the Senator from Colorado that I will join you.
If the EPA is responsible for this spill, then I will stand with you.
Justice should be done.
The point I am making to you is that this leap of logic then--to put
Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA--is really taking away the power of
this Agency to avoid that kind of environmental disaster.
Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DURBIN. I will be glad to yield for a question.
Mr. GARDNER. To the Senator from Illinois, the EPA stated that they
caused this spill. Dozens upon dozens of individuals and businesses
filed a claim against the EPA for damages caused by a spill that the
EPA admits. Scott Pruitt has said that he will fulfill the promise of
paying for those claims the Obama administration denied.
Will the Senator agree that the EPA, under the last administration,
failed to deliver on the promises made of paying these claims?
Mr. DURBIN. I reclaim my time and just say this. I do not know the
particulars. I understand that what you said is what I read, that it
was the fault of some government employee--perhaps of the EPA. I don't
dispute that fact. If that is the case, then we have a responsibility
to your State to make it whole again. And whoever the EPA Administrator
is should face that responsibility. I will join you in that effort.
But to go from there to say Scott Pruitt is the man to head the EPA
because he is going to acknowledge this one fact, is to ignore his
record, to ignore his position on the environment.
The Senator from Colorado, I know has to leave the floor, but I want
to continue on this vein. Yesterday, the President of the United States
decided to sign a resolution. He had a big gathering. He had Senator
McConnell, the Republican leader and other Members of the Senate and
the House. It was a big celebration. Representatives of mining
companies, coal companies, even mine workers were there celebrating the
repeal of an EPA rule. What was the repeal of that rule? The repeal of
that rule related to what the mining companies could dump into rivers
and streams from their mining operations. What was the fear? The debris
in toxic waste that they would dump in the rivers would end up killing
rivers, just like the river that the Senator from Colorado has given a
speech on.
I might add that he voted to repeal that rule. So now we have the
President of the United States saying we are going to revitalize the
mining economy by eliminating a rule that restricts mining companies
from dumping debris and toxic waste into rivers and streams. Now, that
doesn't follow.
If you are dedicated to keeping our rivers and streams healthy and
pure and reliable sources for safe drinking water, you don't do what
President Trump did yesterday. You don't do what the Republicans in the
Senate did just a few days ago and remove this rule. I struggled to
understand.
I see my friend from Delaware is here. The Senator and I have been in
this business for a long time together. I won't say how many years.
He knows, I know, and some others know, but most people would be
surprised of the following: Which President of the United States
created the Environmental Protection Agency? Richard Milhous Nixon,
1970. A Republican President created this Agency which has become the
bete noire for the Republicans--the most hated Federal agency, created
by a Republican President.
Why? Because at that moment in time, America was awakening to Rachel
Carson's ``Silent Spring'' and to so many other factors, when we
finally concluded there was something we were doing to the environment
that was harmful, not just to the environment but to the Earth, which
we hoped to leave our children.
We joined together on a bipartisan basis--this is before I was in
Congress--to create this Agency which Scott Pruitt seeks to lead. Now,
what has happened? What has happened is there has been a role reversal
here. The Republicans, who used to be part of environmental protection
and safety, have now abandoned it.
In fact, that is the drum they beat on most often, when they talk
about overregulation, the Environmental Protection Agency. Yesterday,
this President--28 days into his Presidency--could not wait to sign a
rule that allows mining companies to dump toxic waste and debris into
rivers and streams. You know the argument: It is just too expensive not
to. If we are going to make a profit, if we are going to employ people,
then you have to let us dump this into the rivers and streams.
I don't buy it. The reason I don't buy it is that I can remember many
years ago, the first time I went across my State of Illinois and took a
look at abandoned mine lands. These were lands that were strip mined,
which means they brought in bulldozers and really just found the coal
deposits, not just that for below the surface of the land. They ripped
out the coal and left the mess behind for future generations.
It was horrible--a horrible environmental disaster. They walked away
from them after they made the money. They went out of business and left
that mess behind for the next generation or the one beyond it.
I am all in favor of mining. Fundamentally, there is nothing wrong
with it at all. But responsible mining means that you are responsible
when it comes to the environment. You just don't make your money and
leave, you accept the responsibility to leave behind something that is
as good as or better than the way you found it. It is known as
stewardship. It is Biblical.
This is kind of a moral responsibility which we accept on this Earth
that we live on, to leave it better than we found it. The Environmental
Protection Agency is there for that purpose.
I would say to the Senator from Delaware, they did a survey in
Chicago a few years ago. They asked the people of Chicago: What is the
one thing unique and defining about that city? Overwhelmingly, the
response was Lake Michigan, as it should be--this magnificent great
lake which borders the city of Chicago.
It is a source of so much fun and joy and aesthetic beauty. We look
at it and thank the good Lord that we have the good fortune of living,
as many of us do, part time, full time, right there on the banks of
Lake Michigan.
It was about 5 or 6 years ago that I heard a story about a ship on
Lake Michigan. It was an auto ferry. It took passengers and automobiles
across that beautiful great lake. It moved them from Wisconsin to
Michigan. The name of the ship was the SS Badger. It had been around
for decades. It was kind of an institution.
Come the summer months when people would cross that lake to head over
to Michigan or back over to Wisconsin, they would pile on and bring on
their automobiles and families. It was a great excursion. But we came
to learn that there was another side to the story. The SS Badger was
the last coal-fired auto ferry on the Great Lakes. It burned coal to
run the engine to move the ship across Lake Michigan.
That, in and of itself, raises some interesting questions about
pollution coming off the smokestack of the SS Badger. It turned out
that wasn't the worst part. The worst part is that for decades, as the
SS Badger trekked across Lake Michigan, it not only burned coal, it
dumped the coal ash overboard while it was going across the lake.
This potentially dangerous and toxic coal ash was being dumped into
Lake Michigan day after day after day. The Environmental Protection
Agency came in and gave us the facts. It turned out that the auto
ferry, that one ship, was the dirtiest ship on the Great Lakes. It
created more pollution, more damage to the Great Lakes and

[[Page S1359]]

its environment, than any other ship. Believe me, there are plenty of
ships that traverse the Great Lakes. This was the filthiest, dirtiest
ship.
The EPA said to the SS Badger: We know you employ people. We know you
perform an important function. But clean up your act. So what did the
SS Badger do, in light of this EPA finding? Well, they fought them all
the way. They came to Congress and asked that Congress designate the SS
Badger as a historical monument. A historical monument? Well, it was an
old ship. There is no doubt about it. But the notion that came from the
Congressmen from Michigan and Wisconsin was, by designating it a
historical monument, it would be exempt from environmental protection
laws.
So the dirtiest ship--the SS Badger--on the Great Lakes would somehow
have historical status and continue to pollute Lake Michigan. I thought
it was outrageous. A number of us joined in stopping that effort.
Instead, we said to the EPA: You have given them years to clean it up.
Now do something about it.
Next thing, surprisingly, the owner of the SS Badger asked to meet
with me in my office. I said sure. He came in and he said: Senator, we
employ 100 people. We have been doing this for years. We cannot
technologically clean up the SS Badger. It just can't be done. We would
lose too much money.
I said: I am sorry, but that is unacceptable. You cannot tell me that
because of profitability you need to continue to create a bigger mess
in the Great Lakes than any other ship on the Great Lakes.
So he went back and lawyered up and decided he would fight the EPA. I
stood with the EPA, the regional office out of Chicago. We had a battle
on our hands. A rule was issued by the EPA.
I hear so many Republicans come to the floor bemoaning rules and
regulations. Let me join that chorus. Are there too many rules and regs
in some areas? Yes. Are there some rules and regs which I could never
explain or even try to defend? Certainly.
But the rules and regulations of the EPA many times are critically
important. In this case, that was exactly what we found. So the EPA
issued a rule and regulation that said to the SS Badger: You have been
given years to clean up, and you will not do it. So now the clock is
ticking. There will come a moment when you will be subject to a
substantial fine if you don't clean up your act.
Do you know what happened because of this onerous EPA regulation? Do
you know what happened to the SS Badger, whose owner said that it was
technologically impossible for them to clean up this mess? They came up
with the most basic, simple solution. You wonder why they waited so
long. They now hold the coal ash on the SS Badger as they go back and
forth across Lake Michigan. They remove it once they get to shore and
put it into an environmentally acceptable waste disposal.
This was an obvious answer for decades, but they would not do it. It
took the Environmental Protection Agency to step up and threaten it
with a rule and a fine. Now they are finally doing it.
So I say to those who loathe government rules and regulations: This
was a good one. For the health of the Great lakes, for God's gift to us
of that beautiful body of water, we did the right thing and the EPA was
there to do it.
Yesterday, when President Trump signed this new resolution that
repealed the rule, he was reversing what I just described to you. He
was saying to mining companies across the United States: Be my guest.
Dump toxic waste and debris in our rivers and streams.
He did it in the name of job creation. We all want to create jobs,
but if we are creating jobs at the expense of the health of rivers and
lakes, if we are creating jobs at the expense of safe drinking water,
that is a bargain I will not be part of.
Many times I have had a conversation with my wife and friends. I
guess it reflects the fact that we have been on this Earth a little
longer than some. You wonder out loud. You say: Why in the world do we
have more autism today than we once had? Why do we have more cancers
than we once had? People have a lot of theories. Some of them are wild
and unfounded. But many times people say: Could it possibly be the
chemicals in our drinking water? I do not know.
I am a liberal arts lawyer. Don't get me near a laboratory; I would
not know what to do with it. But it is a legitimate question, whether
there is some contamination in our drinking water, which has a public
health impact. Someday we may discover that.
Isn't it best for us to err on the side of keeping our drinking water
as safe and clean as possible? I think so. I don't want to turn on the
tap and drink the water and think that I am making myself sicker or
more susceptible to a disease. I sure as heck don't want to do it for
my kids and grandkids. What Agency is responsible for that? It turns
out to be the Environmental Protection Agency. That is the Agency that
Scott Pruitt seeks to head.
He is a terrible choice. I am sorry to say that. I shook hands with
him once. I don't know him very well. But when you look at what he has
done--I think of a letter I received from Dale Bryson in Illinois. I
don't know him personally. He wrote to me and he said:

Having served under both Republican and Democratic
Presidents, we recognize each new administration's right to
pursue different policies or ask that Congress change the
laws that protect our environment. But EPA's administrator
must act in the public's interest and not simply advance the
agenda of any specific industry that EPA regulates.

Mr. Bryson goes on to say:

The agency is lucky to have had EPA administrators,
Republicans and Democrats, with the patience, skill and
commitment to public service that is needed to steer through
these challenges and deliver the clean and healthy
environment that Americans want at a price they are willing
to pay. We do not believe Scott Pruitt has demonstrated that
he has the qualities needed to lead the Environmental
Protection Agency.

He was not the only one who wrote to me. I have heard from
constituents who believe that sensible environmental regulation is
critical for us to have a clean planet to live on and leave to our
kids. Tim Hoellein, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago,
conducts research on water pollution in city environments. He wrote to
me and said:

I note our city, State and county have made some major
advances toward better infrastructure and policy for clean
water. However, we are still not meeting our obligations to
our neighbors and future generations by rising to the best
standards of water stewardship. Those gains are at eminent
risk with the appointment of Mr. Pruitt to the EPA.

Finally, I want to read a letter from a Chicago resident, Ms. Maureen
Keane. She wrote to me and she said:

I love my country. I love our beautiful environment and my
family. We need a strong advocate for our land and people to
head the EPA. That person is not Scott Pruitt. Hundreds of
former employees of the EPA agree with me. That must mean
something. Pruitt has a record of doing everything he can to
shut down and dismantle the EPA. We need a strong advocate
who has the ability to create a balance between business and
our land and people resources, one who can create strong laws
for which businesses can agree on and adhere to while
protecting our most precious assets, people, wildlife, and
our land.

She says:

As someone who grew up surrounded by dirty water in the
Little Calumet River, next to a train yard, and surrounded by
onion fields with pesticides, I have seen first hand family
and neighbors die young from cancer. Please oppose Pruitt if
you love America and your family. This is a decision that can
be costly for future generations.

These letters really are just a handful of those that I have received
on the subject. Scott Pruitt has alarming conflicts of interest with
the oil and gas industry.
My friend and colleague, Senator Carper of Delaware, has taken on
this nomination professionally and in the right way. He has helped us
reach a point now where we have to say to our friends on the Republican
side of the aisle: Be careful about the vote that you cast at 1 o'clock
today, because by 1 o'clock on Tuesday or Wednesday, in the following
week, you may regret that vote.
The reason I say it is that Senator Carper has been working with
groups trying to get a disclosure of the emails that Scott Pruitt,
attorney general of Oklahoma, had during the course of serving as
attorney general, while he was filing some 14 different lawsuits
against the Environmental Protection Agency. He was caught red-handed
taking a letter written by one of these energy companies and changing
the letterhead and calling it an official statement from his own
attorney general's office. So he clearly has a comfortable,

[[Page S1360]]

if not cozy, relationship with the energy companies. That, in and of
itself, is not condemning or damning, but if it ends up that he is
seeking this position to advocate their political position, rather than
to protect America's environment, that is a relevant issue.

Senator Carper has been working with groups night and day to get
disclosure of emails that were sent to Scott Pruitt and sent by him
between oil and gas companies and other energy companies to determine
whether there are any conflicts we should know about before giving him
this job.
I understand that late this morning, our Senator from Oregon, Mr.
Merkley, may be coming and asking for us to postpone this vote until
these emails are publicly disclosed. Is it 5, 6, 10 emails? I think it
is thousands, isn't it? Some 3,000 emails.
The Republican Senators and Senator McConnell have said: We don't
want to read them. We don't care what is in them. It doesn't make any
difference if there is a conflict of interest. This is Scott Pruitt. He
is our man. President Trump wanted him. We don't want to read the
facts. We don't want to know the evidence. We just want to give a good,
loyal vote to our President.
I don't think that is the way we should meet our responsibilities in
the Senate. This thoughtful and sensible thing to do is to postpone
this vote until we return. We are going to be gone next week because of
the President's recess. Scott Pruitt can wait 10 days, and we can wait
for the truth, can't we?
The Environmental Protection Agency will continue to do its business
with its professionals, but before we put him in the job--which we may
come to regret in just a few days--shouldn't we take the time to do
this and do it thoughtfully?
As Oklahoma attorney general, he sued the EPA 14 times. He was often
partnering with the very industries he is now being called on to
regulate. Though some of these lawsuits are still ongoing, he will not
even commit to recuse himself.
He was asked during the course of his hearing: As attorney general of
Oklahoma, you sued the EPA. The EPA, as an Agency, has the first level
of administrative hearing on those lawsuits. Will you, if you become
Administrator and Secretary of the EPA, commit to recuse yourself from
those lawsuits you filed?
He said: No.
That means he could have a very interesting position when those
lawsuits come up for consideration. He will be the petitioner and the
plaintiff; Scott Pruitt, attorney general of Oklahoma. He will be the
defendant; Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt,
Administrator, and Secretary. He will also be the jury; the
Environmental Protection Agency, headed up by Scott Pruitt in his
administrative capacity.
What a sweetheart deal. I used to be a trial lawyer. This would be
the answer to a prayer. I get to be the plaintiff and the defendant and
the judge?
Scott Pruitt wants to protect his right to do that so he can continue
to protect the special interests he represented as attorney general of
Oklahoma.
Common sense suggests to any lawyer licensed to practice in America
that this is a conflict of interest which needs to be avoided, but
Scott Pruitt says: No, they have to go forward, and I have to win this
lawsuit.
You know what, I think he is going to win the lawsuit if he doesn't
recuses himself.
We need to ensure that the EPA has strong leadership, that it is
dedicated not to energy companies, not to oil companies, not to gas
companies but to protecting all Americans. Literally, lives depend on
it.
President Donald Trump has chosen not just a man with an
extraordinary amount of conflicts of interest but a person who is a
climate-denier. He said some things that are nothing short of amazing.
Look at this quote by Scott Pruitt, candidate for Administrator of
the EPA:

The debate about climate change is just that, a debate.
There are scientists that agree, there are scientists that
don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and whether
it is even harmful at this point.

Really? So 98 percent of scientists--98 percent--have said that
something is happening to this world, and human activity is the reason,
98 percent of them. Greenhouse gas emissions, carbon in our atmosphere,
obvious changes, glacial melts, the rising of the oceans, extreme
weather conditions that we are facing--just a casual observer would
understand that is a reality, but not this man, not the man who seeks
to head the Environmental Protection Agency. To him, it is still being
debated.
He is in this rarified group with blinders. You see him here with his
glasses. He wants to put on blinders when it comes to climate change.
And this is the man President Trump has chosen to head up the
Environmental Protection Agency?
The Chicago Sun Times, on December 8, had an editorial entitled ``Foe
of EPA is wrong person to lead it.'' Here is what they said:

Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed
Scott Pruitt, an open foe of environmental initiatives, to
head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That
demonstrates a callous disregard for the health of our nation
and planet just as rapid technological advances hold out hope
for avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
The U.S. Senate should reject Pruitt.

They go on to say:

During his campaign, Trump said he would dismantle
President Barack Obama's environmental policies and pull the
United States out of the 195-nation Paris accord to reduce
greenhouse gases and climate change. After the election,
Trump moderated his tone, saying he has an open mind about
climate change. His appointment of Pruitt, however, suggests
that if he's open to anything, it's strictly more pollution.

They go on to say:

The EPA is all about science. Someone who doesn't believe
in science can't do the job.

His appointment would send a message to the rest of the world that
the United States is not a partner in efforts to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. The damage could be incalculable.
If a house divided against itself could not stand, neither can a
government agency.
When you listen to what Scott Pruitt has said about science, you
realize this man has no business heading up the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Listen to what he said in February 2012: The amount of human exposure
to mercury from U.S. powerplants is small. ``Human exposure to
methylmercury resulting from coal fired EGUs is exceedingly small.''
Here is what the scientists say:

As a result of these long-term mercury inputs [from coal-
fired electric utilities], there are hotspots and whole
regions, such as the Adirondacks of New York, the Great Lakes
region of the Midwest and large portions of the Southeast
where the fishery is contaminated with mercury. . . . There
are more fish consumption advisories in the U.S. for mercury
than all other contaminants combined.

The source of this scientific statement: Dr. Charles Driscoll from
Syracuse University.
Here is what Mr. Pruitt said about mercury and air toxic emissions
from power plants: ``Finally, the record does not support EPA's
findings that mercury, non-mercury HAP metals, and acid gas HAPs pose
public health hazards.''
Here is what the scientists say: ``There is no evidence demonstrating
a `safe' level of mercury exposure.'' Source of that statement: Dr.
Jerome Paulson from the Council on Environmental Health, American
Academy of Pediatrics, before the Senate EPW Committee.
Scott Pruitt isn't quite sure if mercury is really that dangerous.
Scientists disagree.
Mr. Pruitt, when talking about the benefits from cleaning up
powerplant mercury emissions: The benefits of cleaning up powerplant
mercury are ``too speculative,'' said Mr. Pruitt, and ``not supported
by the scientific literature.'' Concluding, ``EPA cannot properly
conclude that it is `appropriate and necessary' to regulate hazardous
air pollutants under section 112.''
That is a statement from Scott Pruitt's legal brief in Murray Energy
Corporation v. EPA, November 2016.
What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observations? ``U.S.
efforts to reduce mercury emissions, including from power plants, are
benefiting public health much faster than could have been predicted in
1990.'' Source of that

[[Page S1361]]

statement: Dr. Lynn Goldman, dean of Milken Institute School of Public
Health, George Washington University, January of this year.
Here is what Mr. Pruitt had to say about the debate over whether
climate change is real:

Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates
of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists
continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global
warming and its connection to the actions of mankind. That
debate should be encouraged--in classrooms, public forums,
and the halls of Congress.

That quote is from an article in the National Review, May of 2016.
What do scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation? ``The
scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to
justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.''
That was a statement from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in
2005--12 years ago. Twelve years later, Scott Pruitt is still wrestling
with whether this is a problem.
How about Mr. Pruitt, when it comes to the extent of the human
activity on climate change? He said:

We've had ebb and flow, we've had obviously climate
conditions change throughout our history, and that is
scientific fact. It gets cooler. It gets hotter. And we do
not know the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do
we know, the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and
man's contribution to that, is making it far worse than it
is.

That was a statement he made on the ``Exploring Energy'' radio
program in May of 2016.
What do the scientists say about that? ``The scientific evidence is
clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring
now, and it is a growing threat to society.'' Source: American
Association for the Advancement of Science, 2006--11 years ago.
They said this unequivocally. Scott Pruitt still doesn't buy it.
What did he say about climate change being a natural occurrence? I
will quote him.

Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period
of time when the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat, I mean
is it just typical natural type of occurrences as opposed to
what the (Obama) Administration says?

Again, this is from that radio program ``Exploring Energy.'' This was
in October of 2016.
What do the scientists say about Mr. Pruitt's observation?

Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.
Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change
observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can
significantly lessen negative outcomes.

The source: The American Geophysical Union; the date, 2003--14 years
ago.
Here is Scott Pruitt, this man who wants to head up our Environmental
Protection Agency, still at war with scientific fact. What has he said
about the debate over climate change? He said:

Again, this is from the ``Exploring Energy'' radio program show in
May of 2016.
What do the scientists have to say about that?

It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the
dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past
half century is human-induced increases in the amount of
atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide
(CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous
oxide.

The source of that statement: The American Meteorological Society,
2012--5 years ago.
What Mr. Pruitt says about how reasonable minds can disagree on
climate:

How [climate change] is happening, if it is, clearly is
subject for reasonable minds to disagree. Whether man is
contributing to it or not.

Again, this is from his ``Exploring Energy'' radio program, April
2016. I am sorry I missed that one too.
Here is what the scientists say in response:

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is
occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant
disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems,
social systems, security and human health are likely to
occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning
now.

The source of that scientific statement: The American Physical
Society, 2007--10 years ago.
Now we know what this man is all about. He denies science. He is an
advocate for those special interest groups who make money off of
pollution. He doesn't believe the Environmental Protection Agency
should have the authority it has today. He has challenged it 14 times
in court. He won't recuse himself from even the petitions he has
personally filed as attorney general of Oklahoma, and he is anxious to
be approved by the Senate before we get a chance next Tuesday or
Wednesday to read 3,000 emails he received and sent as attorney general
of Oklahoma, including emails between Mr. Pruitt and energy, gas, and
oil companies.
I think it is pretty clear what this is all about. This is an effort
by special interests in America to put their best friend on the job at
the Environmental Protection Agency. They want to make sure he is there
to look the other way when we should be regulating to keep this planet
we live on safe and in good shape for future generations. That makes it
a clear choice for all of us. I am going to vote against Scott Pruitt.
I am sorry, I say to Donald Trump. You have a right to have your
point of view, but you don't have a right to put a man in this job who
denies basic science that has been agreed upon for over a decade. You
certainly don't have a right in this circumstance to put a man in
charge of the EPA who is going to add to the climate change problem in
our world, who is going to diminish the reputation in the United States
on fighting this on an international basis, and who is going to kowtow
to special interest groups, which has been shown over and over again
when it comes to his service as the attorney general in the State of
Oklahoma.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have 5 minutes to make a
statement on a separate topic.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.