[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1366-S1374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that 
following disposition of the Pruitt nomination, the Senate resume 
consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Wilbur Ross to be 
Secretary of Commerce, Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of Interior, Ben 
Carson to be Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and Rick Perry 
to be Secretary of Energy.
  I further ask unanimous consent that there be 30 minutes of debate on 
the

[[Page S1367]]

nominations, equally divided in the usual form, and that following the 
use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the nominations in the 
order listed with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. MERKLEY. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, over the past several weeks, we have 
seen a historic level of obstruction from our Democratic colleagues on 
the President's Cabinet. Let me say that again--truly historic, 
unprecedented, harmful, and pointless obstruction. It is one thing to 
obstruct to get some outcome. Really, these are a collection of futile 
gestures not changing the outcome on any of these nominations.
  They have postponed committee meetings as long as they possibly 
could. They forced unnecessary procedural hurdles, and they have even 
boycotted markups altogether.
  So as I indicated, to what end? It hasn't prevented the Senate from 
moving forward with the confirmation of these nominees. And, by the 
way, it hasn't--and it won't--change the outcome of the election, 
either, which was back in November. I think it is pretty clear that 
that is what this is all about.
  Instead, this Democratic obstruction has just kept many of our 
Nation's most critical agencies without a leader for too long--
needlessly delaying the President from fully standing up this new 
administration. It has led to what is now the longest it has taken to 
confirm most of the President's Cabinet since George Washington--what a 
record for our Democratic colleagues to hold.
  Enough is enough. We need to put the rest of the President's Cabinet 
into place without further delay. Confirming these well-qualified 
nominees is what is best for our country. My goodness, isn't that what 
we should all want?
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I speak in opposition to Scott Pruitt, 
and I thank Senator Carper for the good work he has done in leading the 
opposition to someone who is a climate change denier and will not 
release information that the public should see.
  I want to say a few comments about the majority leader's comments. I 
am incredulous that he thinks this has been unfair to the Trump 
administration and Republicans; that we have not moved faster. We know 
a bunch of things. We know President Trump didn't begin his vetting 
process, as most Presidential candidates do, in August.
  We then know right after the election he fired his person in charge 
of vetting and of the transition. We know then he appointed people 
without vetting them because he wanted to speed it up, and we also know 
that a number of people who President Trump nominated were billionaires 
and Wall Street bankers, and they had very complicated financial 
backgrounds and holdings, and because the Trump administration didn't 
do it, the Senate had to do it, and the media had to do it--to look at 
the backgrounds of some of these nominees.
  Then, on top of that, we saw a level of corruption we had never seen 
in Presidential nominations. We saw a Secretary of Health and Human 
Services--passed by being voted for by every Republican--who bought and 
sold healthcare stocks while a Member of Congress, voting on and 
sponsoring healthcare amendments and bills.
  We saw other nominees. We saw Secretary Mnuchin, and Senator Carper 
played a role in this, now-Secretary Mnuchin, who forgot to disclose a 
$100 million investment he had and then lied to the Senate committee, 
as pointed out by the Columbus Dispatch--the most conservative paper in 
my State--about robo-signing, sending hundreds of people in my State 
into foreclosure.
  The ethics of these nominees are such, and then you have Scott Pruitt 
to be Administrator of the EPA, and he will not disclose 2,600 emails 
that we know how--as Senator Carper has done such a good job on--we 
know how a number of these emails point to--I am not a lawyer--if not 
the word ``collusion,'' certainly doing the bidding of the fossil fuel 
industry that he might occasionally want to regulate instead of the 
EPA. That is the story.
  I want an Administrator of the EPA who wants to protect the country's 
great natural resources, not someone hell-bent on undermining the 
Agency he will lead. The environmental challenges we face in my State 
are too great to put the EPA in the hands of someone with a track 
record of putting polluters before public health, of choosing companies 
that pollute over communities that are victimized by that pollution, 
and too often he is doing the work of campaign donors instead of the 
public.
  I know what the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts have meant to my 
State. I know what Lake Erie looks like. When I was a kid, I lived 
about an hour and a half away. Lake Erie was an environmental disaster. 
The counties of Cuyahoga, Erie, and Lorain couldn't clean it up. The 
State of Ohio didn't have the resources to clean it up.
  It was only that terrible fire in Cleveland where bridge trestles on 
the Cuyahoga River caught on fire that got the Nixon administration to 
move and create the EPA, and then we cleaned up Lake Erie. That was one 
of the great accomplishments in our country's history--environmental 
and otherwise, one of the great accomplishments.
  It was a Republican administration with the Democratic Congress, when 
good environmental policy was bipartisan, when Republicans as well as 
Democrats believed in being stewards of the Earth in following a number 
of the teachings of the New Testament about being stewards of the 
Earth.
  It was a sustained effort by citizens and by their elected officials 
in both parties to protect our public health. The EPA affects the water 
that comes into our children's drinking fountains. It affects our small 
businesses that rely on tourists at our lakes and beaches. It affects 
farmers who feed the Nation. According to Dr. Aparna Bole--a pediatric 
specialist at Cleveland's University Hospital in Cleveland--asthma 
rates in my part of Ohio are above the national average because of the 
region's poor air quality.
  Climate change is not some distant problem. We tend to think about 
wildfires in the West or devastation faced by coastal communities, like 
those affected by Hurricane Sandy. The Midwest is affected too.
  In August, 2014, a harmful algae bloom left 500,000 Ohioans in 
Greater Toledo, in Northwest Ohio, without safe drinking water for 
nearly 3 days. This is Lake Erie. This is more or less the natural 
color of Lake Erie. This is the algal bloom. It is a stunning, 
beautiful picture if you don't know what it is, but when you see a boat 
cutting through these algal blooms and seeing what this meant, as the 
algae chokes Lake Erie--Lake Erie right here is about 30 feet deep. 
Contrast that with Lake Superior, 600 feet, and you will see why Lake 
Erie is more vulnerable.
  Lake Erie is 2 percent of the water in all the Great Lakes. Lake Erie 
has 50 percent of the fish of all the Great Lakes. The fish like 
shallower and warmer water, but they don't like these kinds of algal 
blooms and what they do to this community. Because it is the shallowest 
of the Great Lakes, and this is the shallowest part of this great lake, 
it is uniquely vulnerable to these harmful algal blooms.
  We know these blooms are caused by excess nutrients in our water--
untreated sewage, urban runoff, and runoff from farm fields. This 
Maumee River Basin going into the lake from the south, going into the 
lake just north of Toledo, drains the largest 2 million acres, the 
largest basin of any tributary going into any of the Great Lakes.
  On Wednesday, I met with David Spangler, a charter boat captain on 
Lake Erie. We talked about how the Great Lakes region has seen a 37-
percent increase in heavy rain events. We have seen that hotter summers 
make the blooms worse. We talked about protecting the lake as one of 
the great environmental challenges, not just for Ohio or even the 
industrial Midwest but protecting Lake Erie and the Great Lakes, the 
greatest source of freshwater in the world, by most measurements--how 
important that is.
  Dave has been fishing on this lake and its tributaries for decades. 
He bragged about the improvements we

[[Page S1368]]

have seen over the year--how water quality has improved, how walleye 
and yellow perch populations have rebounded, how he leads fishing 
expeditions on the Great Lakes, on Lake Erie. You know what, look at 
what these algal blooms have done. You can guess what they have done. 
Nobody will go fishing in these kinds of waters.
  If the algal bloom is there too long, lots of fish die in addition to 
that. We need an EPA Administrator who understands that the 
contamination hurts everything from our children's health to our small 
businesses. He told me he doesn't think Scott Pruitt is the right 
person for this job. He believes that with Scott Pruitt at the helm of 
the EPA, we would likely lose the gains we made in the lake.
  Of particular concern to both Mr. Spangler and me is that Mr. Pruitt 
said mercury does not cause a threat to human health. Really? Mercury 
doesn't cause a threat to human health? If Mr. Pruitt doesn't believe 
that, I would like him to explain to me why the Ohio EPA, the Ohio 
Department of Health--both with Republican administrators--have a 
statewide mercury advisory stating that women of childbearing age and 
children under 15 are advised to eat no more than one meal per week of 
fish from any Ohio water body. Think about that. You shouldn't eat more 
than one meal a week of fish taken out of any of the Ohio aqua system--
limit the amount of fish eaten from our State's largest body. That 
means even though we worked for decades to reduce mercury emissions, 
apparently Mr. Pruitt doesn't think mercury exposure is a threat to 
public health.
  Mr. Pruitt has solicited thousands of dollars of campaign 
contributions for himself, the Republican Attorneys General 
Association, all the Republican attorneys general. There are three 
dozen or so of them. They work together to raise lots of money to keep 
themselves in office so they can continue to do some of the work they 
do. Some of the work they do is stand in the way of good environmental 
policy.
  He has refused, for years, as Senators Merkley and Carper have 
pointed out consistently, to disclose some 2,600 documents, showing 
correspondence between his office and the very companies he is supposed 
to ensure follow the law.
  We know who some of those companies are. What is he hiding? Why won't 
he tell the Senate what is in those documents? Why does the Senate 
Republican leader not want us to see those documents? Because he is 
saying, no, we have to vote on this now. It just happens to be we will 
be looking at documents over the next few days, but apparently it is 
not going to be able to affect this vote.
  It could be because in the past he submitted letters to the EPA that 
were written by the companies he is supposed to regulate. Think about 
that. An oil company writes a letter and then that letter remarkably 
ends up pretty much word for word to be sent to the EPA.
  Allowing him to become EPA Administrator is like allowing an arsonist 
to become the fire chief--the goal of both is to burn things down. Mr. 
Pruitt's record clearly shows he is not the right person to lead our 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, today I must vote to oppose the 
confirmation of Scott Pruitt as the President's nominee for 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA. While I 
believe that the President enjoys some privilege of selecting 
administration officials, the views that Mr. Pruitt and I hold on a 
wide range of key environmental issues are completely irreconcilable. I 
was deeply disturbed by Mr. Pruitt's lack of specificity and his 
evasiveness during his hearing and in response to written questions.
  While no one would expect Mr. Pruitt to detail the new Trump 
administration's policies on these complex issues, we do expect the 
nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency to share with us 
his own views on important matters, including whether there are any EPA 
regulations he supports, or whether he would fully recuse himself from 
making decisions in all legal cases in which he was an original party--
but no. Instead, he testified that he had not conducted a comprehensive 
review of existing EPA regulations. With respect to recusals, he 
asserts that he would simply follow the recommendations of the EPA's 
ethics office. That is not good enough.
  I am deeply disturbed by Mr. Pruitt's evasive responses. This does 
not bode well for his future interactions with Congress where he will 
certainly be required to appear before committees and provide 
testimony, briefing materials, and other information in a timely 
manner. Under oath before the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
he told the committee members, U.S. Senators, to go to the back of the 
line, to make records requests to his home State if they wanted 
information. This is information that Mr. Pruitt could and should have 
provided to the committee. As a result, information needed by the 
Senate to judge his fitness for this position has yet to be revealed.
  Committee members were told 19 separate times to get the information 
they were requesting from his own office, the Oklahoma Attorney 
General's Office, an office that has more than a 2-year backlog for 
such requests. That is not the spirit of openness and transparency we 
expect and must demand from witnesses, let alone from nominees who come 
before the U.S. Senate. How can the Senate adequately fulfill its 
responsibility of advice and consent if nominees will not cooperate? 
Mr. Pruitt has stonewalled the committee and the entire Senate on 
answers to basic questions about possible conflicts of interest. He has 
refused to provide relevant emails and other documents. This is 
unacceptable. It is also unacceptable to advance and approve this 
nominee without a clear and complete view of his record and his close 
relationships with the very companies he will be tasked with 
regulating.
  With respect to the Agency that he has been nominated to lead, it is 
imperative that we not reverse or halt the tremendous progress that has 
been made in achieving strong, scientifically based environmental 
protection goals. The EPA itself was born out of an environmental 
crisis in this country, in the wake of elevated awareness of and 
concern about pollution. This came after our Nation watched in horror 
as the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, OH, burst into flames again as it 
was so saturated with sewage and industrial waste that it oozed rather 
than flowed. That pollution was a byproduct of unchecked pollution from 
industrial wastes.
  Over its 46 years, the EPA has made enormous progress and become one 
of the world's most successful protectors of public health and the 
environment. Americans now expect clean air and clean water, where, 
before the EPA was created, we expected nothing more than burning 
rivers and polluted air. While cleaning up the environment, we have 
also grown jobs and strengthened our economy. However, we continue to 
face an environmental crisis of our own making with climate change, and 
EPA's mission to protect public health and the environment reminds us 
that the tasks of this Agency are essential to every single American. 
Americans care about having clean air to breath, safe drinking water, 
and swimmable and fishable rivers and streams. They want their food to 
be free of pesticides and their workplaces to be healthy and safe. They 
want their children to have a future that is free of the dangers of 
climate change.
  Sadly, Mr. Pruitt refuses to accept the scientific community's 
overwhelming consensus that unchecked increases in greenhouse gas 
emissions will have catastrophic effects. The science is crystal clear 
that the impacts of climate change will increase in frequency and 
scale. Even the Department of Defense recognizes that climate change 
will impact the complexity of future missions, including defense 
support to civil authorities, while at the same time undermining the 
capacity of our domestic installations to support training activities.
  Climate change cannot be dismissed as merely a political issue. We 
need to address the unfettered release of carbon and other greenhouse 
gases and have a strong resilience strategy to address the plight of 
future generations and the hazards already plaguing this one; yet we 
continue to have political claims thrown about that the EPA's work to 
address climate change and limit carbon emissions is to blame for the 
decline in the coal industry. At their base, these are more 
``alternative facts.'' This was confirmed yet again

[[Page S1369]]

this week as the owners of the Navajo Generating Station, a coal-fired 
power plant in Arizona, voted to close the facility at the end of 2019. 
It was not EPA regulations or the Clean Power Plan that were cited as 
the reason for the closure of the coal-fired plant. No, it was the fact 
that, in a market that is saturated by cheap natural gas prices, the 
plant was no longer economical to operate. Attempts by the President 
and this nominee to spread alternative facts and to misleadingly 
promise to prop up an industry, by blaming action on climate change, is 
not the way to move our country forward and stimulate innovation that 
will create good, new American jobs that cannot be shipped overseas.
  For the benefit of the Senate record on this nominee, I would like to 
take this opportunity to share some of the messages that I have 
received from thousands of Vermonters over the past few weeks about 
this nominee. One Vermonter from Norwich, VT, a student studying 
sustainability and environmental management, said she is fearful of Mr. 
Pruitt's focus on eliminating and defunding any programs that could 
help to stop climate change. She went on to describe the importance of 
peer-reviewed scientific research on climate change and how Federal 
support for our leading academic institutions to complete this research 
is in our national interest as we monitor the Earth's vital signs.
  I also heard from a constituent from Essex Junction, Vermont, who 
shared with me how he has seen firsthand at his technology company how 
the Federal promotion of research and development has directly promoted 
innovation and technological change. This innovation and these 
technical advances have led to new technologies that have radically 
changed many aspects of our lives and have transformed our economy, 
creating jobs, and invigorating our entrepreneurial spirit. He was 
concerned that Mr. Pruitt would seek to dismantle work that the EPA has 
done to find better ways to solve environmental problems, from research 
and technology to regulation, community programs, and external 
partnerships as they work to find creative ways to achieve results.

  I also heard from Vermont farmers like one in Bristol, VT, who shared 
with me how her family farm has experienced the firsthand chaotic 
effects of climate change and has responded to the call to be more 
resilient. She voiced her willingness to cooperate with government 
regulations to protect our air, water, and soil and that we ``need the 
EPA to use science and enforcement to lead the charge.'' She went on to 
say that the head of the EPA should be working to ensure that our air 
is clean to breathe and our water is safe to drink, not to ensure that 
polluters get a free pass. I agree wholeheartedly with her.
  From rural Hartland, I heard from one Vermonter who said that ``the 
health and wellbeing of Americans must be a priority--not the wealth of 
a few corporations and the individuals that benefit from that wealth. 
America must be a global leader when it comes to addressing climate 
change if all nations are to take appropriate measures.''
  As Vermont's ski resorts have enjoyed over ample snow in the last 
week, I have heard from hundreds of snow sport enthusiasts who are 
deeply worried about Mr. Pruitt leading the EPA. They know that climate 
change is a threat to our planet and to our economy. In recent years, 
we have seen abnormally high temperatures that severely hurt our ski 
and tourism industries in Vermont. Many ski areas saw business down 20 
percent, and some saw a drop of as much as 40 percent. This does not 
just affect our ski areas and our mountains, but also our restaurants, 
our local hotels, contractors, and countless other businesses that are 
driven by the vitality of our ski industry. For the State of Vermont, 
the revenue from ski slopes is an important part of our economy, and we 
need an EPA Administrator ready to tackle the problems of climate 
change, not one whose primary goal is supporting business as usual for 
the worst polluters.
  I agree with the thousands of Vermonters who have contacted me 
concerned about this nominee. I believe that Mr. Pruitt's nomination 
sends exactly the wrong signal to the country and to the world as we 
are combatting the global impacts and causes of climate change. His 
nomination represents a massive shift away from putting public health 
and the environment first, and towards ``Polluters `R' Us''--the 
industries that directly benefit from being given free rein to pollute. 
His past conduct suggests that he will do everything he can to support 
those polluters and put their profits ahead of the public good.
  The decisions made by the Administrator of the EPA affect the air we 
breathe, our scenic rivers, our precious resources, the water that our 
children drink, and the rate at which the United States contributes to 
the rapidly changing global climate. This appointee's work will have a 
long-term global impact and a major impact on all of our children and 
grandchildren and on our shared heritage and our natural legacy as 
Americans.
  In my years in the U.S. Senate, I have evaluated many nominees and I 
have supported nominations from both Republican and Democratic 
Presidents, despite my reservations on some views they held. I have 
also opposed some nominees because their records were so clearly 
contrary to the public interest. Rarely have I seen a nominee so 
totally unqualified and so profoundly a threat to our environment. The 
views Mr. Pruitt and I hold on protecting Americans' health and our 
environment and addressing climate change are far too conflicting to 
allow me to support his nomination.
  The Senate will confirm Mr. Pruitt. Of this, there is no question. 
But then we will begin our duty to provide dogged oversight of his 
actions at the EPA. Public trust and confidence demand the highest 
level of accountability to ensure the stewardship of our federal funds, 
to safeguard the integrity of the EPA, to base decisions on rigorous, 
fact-based, peer-reviewed science, for the protection of both public 
health and our environment.
  I worry that confirming Mr. Pruitt will turn the Environmental 
Protection Agency into the ``Polluters Protection Agency.'' I cannot 
support his confirmation.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I rise today to voice my concerns 
about the nomination of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  More than 74,000 Californians have contacted my office expressing 
serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
  Californians want an EPA Administrator with a demonstrated commitment 
to protecting public health and the environment. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Pruitt's record shows the opposite: a clear hostility to public health 
and environmental protections at both the Federal and State level.
  Californians rightfully fear that Mr. Pruitt's only plan for the EPA 
is to dismantle the Agency from within and give polluters free rein.
  The EPA is the lead enforcement agency for bedrock environmental laws 
like the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. The EPA works with States, local communities and tribes to 
provide funding and expertise for fulfilling these environmental laws 
that keep our communities healthy and safe.
  Based on his record as Attorney General of Oklahoma and his past 
statements, including in his confirmation hearing, Scott Pruitt is not 
the right man for this very important job.
  As the Oklahoma Attorney General, Mr. Pruitt eliminated the State's 
environmental protection unit, which enforces State environmental laws, 
including suing polluters for criminal negligence.
  Meanwhile, he's led or participated in over 14 partisan lawsuits 
against the EPA, challenging the Agency's ability to implement Federal 
environmental protections, lawsuits that challenged protections against 
mercury pollution, ``polluter pays'' clean-up requirements, the Clean 
Air Act, and the Clean Water Act.
  And his rhetoric matches his record. Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly 
questioned the validity of widely accepted science that undergirds EPA 
action. He routinely treats the scientific consensus on climate change 
as merely a debate. In an interview with Exploring Energy, Pruitt 
stated: ``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.''

[[Page S1370]]

  He dismissed the dangers of mercury pollution, arguing in one of his 
lawsuits: ``The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury . . 
. poses public health hazards. . .''
  At his confirmation hearing, when asked whether there is any level of 
lead exposure that is safe for children, he could only reply ``that is 
something that I have not reviewed nor know about.''
  Even on his public profile, he described himself as ``a leading 
advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.''
  We are supposed to trust someone to enforce our environmental laws 
who considers himself the primary foe of the EPA? That record is 
troubling enough, but Mr. Pruitt also faces many conflict of interest 
issues that he has refused to commit to recusing himself from as EPA 
Administrator, including: conflicts that would exist over ongoing 
lawsuits that he brought against the EPA as Oklahoma's Attorney General 
or matters or cases under the EPA's authority that involve 
organizations from which Pruitt has solicited campaign funding.
  During his hearing, Mr. Pruitt deflected questions over potential 
conflicts of interest by stating the ``EPA ethics counsel will evaluate 
that if a matter or case comes up in the future.'' This is an 
inadequate protection against conflicts of interest.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is very important to the health 
and well-being of the people of California.
  For example, California received over $100 million in loans from the 
EPA last year to maintain and improve our water infrastructure, 
including wastewater treatment systems, drinking water systems, and 
water recycling facilities. Those funds were vital as our State 
grappled with an historic drought.
  The EPA has also been a vital partner with California in developing 
stronger motor vehicle efficiency standards. One of my proudest 
accomplishments was enacting landmark fuel economy legislation, the 
Ten-in-Ten Fuel Economy Act, which raised fuel economy standards to the 
maximum achievable rate. This law marked the largest increase in fuel 
efficiency in more than two decades and led to an administrative 
program expected to raise average fuel economy to 54.5 miles per gallon 
by 2025.
  This program is the greatest tool we have to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from the transportation sector, and it is working. An 
important technical review concluded this July that automakers are 
already exceeding Federal benchmarks for improved fuel economy by 1.4 
miles per gallon.
  A large part of its success is the cooperation between the Federal 
Government and California to establish a single, coordinated, national 
program that is strong enough to satisfy all parties and stable enough 
to guide investment decisions by the auto makers.
  During his confirmation hearing, my colleague Senator Harris asked 
Mr. Pruitt directly if he would commit to upholding California's right 
to issue its own regulations, which is the way we participate in 
creating the national program. He declined, committing only to review 
the issue, which is not acceptable.
  We in California know that climate change is real and is happening 
now. It is contributing to more volatile weather, including longer, 
stronger droughts and harsher bursts of rain.
  We have a limited amount of time left to reduce the greenhouse gas 
emissions of our transportation and energy systems. If we allow the 
world to warm by more than 2 degrees C, we will be locking in a future 
of unacceptable disasters for our children and grandchildren.
  Now, more than ever, we need strong leadership as other major 
countries like China and India have begun to engage on the issue, and 
we cannot allow the EPA to reverse course and go backward after the 
progress we have made.
  In his words and actions, Scott Pruitt has demonstrated more interest 
in fighting against the mission of the EPA than in fighting for it.
  Mr. Pruitt has done little to nothing to protect the people of 
Oklahoma from the dangers and health problems caused by pollution, 
preferring to sue on behalf of corporate interests. There is nothing to 
suggest he would do anything different for the American people as EPA 
Administrator.
  For this reason and many more, I will vote against Scott Pruitt's 
confirmation to head the EPA.
  Mr. COTTON. Madam President, it is hard to overstate the amount of 
distrust there is between rural America and the EPA.
  I represent the State of Arkansas, where about 70,000 of our citizens 
are farmers. Agriculture is our largest industry, adding about $16 
billion to our economy every year. But even those members--big as they 
are--can't give you a full appreciation of just how important the land 
is to our people. Sure, they make a living off it, but farming isn't 
just an ``industry'' to us--it is not just another statistical category 
like ``nondurable goods manufacturing.'' It is a way of life. The 
people of Arkansas cultivate the land. They nurture it. They teach 
their children how to care for it. These are people who get up at 5 
a.m. to milk the cows. They have had these farms in their families for 
generations. They pass on the land--and the values they have learned 
along with it. They believe in the EPA's mission of preserving a 
healthy environment just as much as anyone.
  Yes, they are stewards of the earth, these men and women, yet the EPA 
too often treats them as criminals. In the last 8 years alone, the EPA 
has been treating their property rights more like a form of parole. It 
has passed sweeping regulations that presume to tell farmers when they 
can plant and how often they can run a tractor. It has declared 
something as tiny as a mud puddle on a family farm as a ``navigable 
water''--thus under the EPA's jurisdiction it has put on a show of 
soliciting ``feedback'' from the people who have to live under its 
rules, while cavalierly dismissing most of their concerns, and all the 
while pursuing an activist agenda, whether through the Clean Power Plan 
or the waters of the United States rule, it has failed to fulfill its 
core mission: keeping our people safe. Just remember, the EPA helped 
bring criminal charges and a $15,000 fine against a North Carolina farm 
owner who accidentally spilled cow dung into a river; yet when it 
caused the wastewater spill into the Animas River, it stalled and 
withheld important information from investigators. If a company had 
acted like the EPA, it would likely have faced criminal charges--
brought about by the EPA.
  It is this state of affairs that our next EPA Administrator will 
inherit, and I want to take this opportunity to say President's Trump 
nominee, Scott Pruitt, has my support.
  I think he is especially qualified to lead the Agency at this time 
because he comes from rural America himself. As the attorney general of 
Oklahoma, he fought the EPA's overreach in court more than half a dozen 
times. I believe he understands that Arkansas farmers and the American 
people know the needs of their land far better than Washington 
bureaucrats do. When I met with him a few weeks ago, we discussed the 
impact EPA regulations are having on Arkansas farms, businesses, and 
energy companies. We also talked about Fort Smith's issues with an 
inflexible EPA consent decree. It was clear from our conversation he 
knew environmental law backwards and forwards, but he also had 
something else: a real-world appreciation of the burden that heavy-
handed regulations put on our farmers and on rural America.
  I believe Scott Pruitt understands we can have both a robust economy 
and a healthy environment. I believe he will pull back the EPA's 
excesses and focus on its core mission. I believe, under his 
leadership, the EPA can begin to rebuild the trust it has lost with 
rural America, the trust that is necessary for it to achieve its goals. 
And so, for all of these reasons, I will be voting to confirm.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, last month I stood here to express my 
serious concerns about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  As the vote draws closer, I want to reiterate those concerns and give 
voice to the thousands of individuals and groups in Oregon who have 
sent letters and made calls and spoken up in my town hall meetings. 
Oregonians have expressed their fears that Pruitt will steer us into a 
ditch when it comes to protecting the environment and public health. I 
share their concerns, and I cannot support this nomination.
  In my view, the importance of the EPA cannot be overstated. The EPA 
is

[[Page S1371]]

at the heart of maintaining clean air and clean water for every person 
in this country, but Mr. Pruitt has made a career of denying climate 
science, attempting to weaken or even get rid of worker protections, 
air quality standards for toxic air pollutants, and basic environmental 
standards. Those rollbacks would hurt us all.
  One prime example of how the EPA has stepped in to protect Oregonians 
is during a recent air quality scare in Portland. In 2015, researchers 
with the U.S. Forest Service discovered that heavy metals including 
cadmium and arsenic had been emitted for decades into the air of 
Portland neighborhoods and schoolyards at dangerous levels.
  I called on the EPA to take action, and within days they were on the 
ground in Portland, testing the air quality and helping our community 
wrap our heads around the public health risks. It wasn't long before 
they identified the root of the problem and corrected course.
  I am not confident that a Pruitt EPA would have jumped to the aid of 
my community in a time when parents wondered if they had been poisoning 
their own children simply by feeding them vegetables grown in their 
backyards.
  Mr. Pruitt's career is defined by repeated attempts to weaken or 
eliminate health-based environmental standards, weaken or eliminate 
limits on carbon emissions that would help address the challenge of 
climate change, weaken or eliminate air quality standards to fight the 
kinds of toxic air pollutants we saw in Portland. Those rollbacks hurt 
us all.
  Mr. Pruitt has a history of attacking the very Agency he now wants to 
lead. As attorney general of Oklahoma, he has been involved in more 
than 20 lawsuits against the EPA, and he has failed to give Congress 
any kind of assurances that he would recuse himself from matters 
related to those lawsuits.
  Mr. Pruitt has clear connections with big businesses who profit from 
polluting--oil and gas companies and coal-hungry electricity giants, 
among others. He has a history of siding with these special interests 
at the direct expense of the health of our families and communities.
  According to news reports, as Oklahoma's Attorney General and head of 
the Republican Attorneys General Association, Pruitt helped raise 
millions from industries he is now expected to regulate.
  More and more of this shadowy history is coming to light. 
Particularly after a judge has ordered him to release thousands of his 
emails as Oklahoma's Attorney General just days from now, the Senate 
should not hold a vote on a nominee when more information may come to 
light about an alarming association with the very industries he would 
be regulating as head of the EPA.
  However, Mr. Pruitt has until next Tuesday to release those emails--4 
days after Senate Republicans are forcing a confirmation vote. In the 
interest of transparency, the Senators should be able to read these 
emails before voting so we can make a fully informed decision.
  By jamming this nomination through today, Senate Republican 
leadership is forcing the Senate to vote on a nominee without knowing 
the content of the full background of this nominee. In my view, that is 
legislative malpractice.
  So I join my Democratic colleagues in asking that the vote on Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination to lead the EPA be delayed until those thousands of 
emails are released and Members of the Senate have the opportunity to 
review their contents.
  The American people are demanding that Senate leadership delay Mr. 
Pruitt's confirmation until this important information is disclosed and 
questions about his possible conflicts of interest are answered.
  On even the most basic level, Mr. Pruitt has a troubling history. He 
has denied the fundamental science that should be used to inform public 
policy.
  Time and time again, Mr. Pruitt has argued against the reality of 
climate change, going so far as to dispute the EPA's rigorous science-
based finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.
  The EPA cannot be run by an individual with a career founded on 
alternative facts; yet that is much of what Scott Pruitt is promoting.
  As I have said to Oregonians about this nomination and others, 
policymakers ought to come together and find the truth, not fall back 
on alternative facts.
  Nearly 800 former employees of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency expressed opposition to Pruitt this week in an open letter. 
These are 800 public servants who are dedicated to the Agency's core 
mission.
  I think Oregonians and the American people need to hear what is in 
this letter. It states, in part:

       Our environmental laws are based on a partnership that 
     requires EPA to set national standards attind 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 statutes. Mr. 
     Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a 
     critically important function for EPA. While serving as 
     Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued 
     more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn 
     EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants, 
     reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks, 
     clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse 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.

  These former EPA employees close the letter by stating:

       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.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full letter be printed in the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Americans ought to have confidence that the head of the EPA 
recognizes what this job is all about--defending the health of our 
communities, not the profits of energy companies or any other special 
interest; yet Mr. Pruitt has given no such assurance. Like these former 
EPA employees, I would not have that confidence in a Pruitt EPA.
  And now, with the release next Tuesday of thousands of his emails 
that may document an alarming association with the very industries he 
is supposed to regulate, it seems particularly premature, even 
irresponsible, to push for a vote on his confirmation today.
  I share the concerns of the thousands of Oregonians and hundreds of 
current and former EPA employees who have expressed their opposition to 
Mr. Pruitt. I will vote against him today because I do not have 
confidence in a Pruitt EPA.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                February 15, 2017.
     Subject: Concerns about Scott Pruitt's qualifications to 
         serve as EPA Administrator.

     Hon. Ron Wyden,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Wyden, We write as former employees of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns 
     about Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt's

[[Page S1372]]

     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 
     helpedavoid thousands of premature deaths from heart and lung 
     disease. The magnitude and severity of those risks did not 
     become apparent until much later.
       Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest 
     that he does not share the vision or agree with the 
     underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr. 
     Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a 
     critically important function for EPA. While serving as 
     Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued 
     more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn 
     EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants, 
     reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks, 
     clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse 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. In 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 to act on the strong scientific consensus on 
     climate change and act accordingly. Our country's own 
     National Research Council, the principal operating arm of the 
     National Academies of Science and Engineering, concluded in a 
     2010 report requested by Congress that human activity is 
     altering the climate to an extent that poses grave risks to 
     Americans' health and welfare. More recent scientific data 
     and analyses have only confirmed the Council's conclusion and 
     added to the urgency of addressing the problem.
       Despite this and other authoritative warnings about the 
     dangers of climate change, Mr. Pruitt persists in pointing to 
     uncertainty about the precise extent of humanity's 
     contribution to the problem as a basis for resisting taking 
     any regulatory action to help solve it. At his Senate 
     confirmation hearing, he stated that ``science tells us that 
     the climate is changing, and that human activity in some 
     manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with 
     precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to 
     do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, 
     and well it should be.'' This is a familiar dodge--
     emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of 
     humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific 
     consensus that human activities are largely responsible for 
     dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently 
     needed before it is too late.
       Mr. Pruitt's indulgence in this dodge raises the 
     fundamental question of whether he agrees with the 
     precautionary principle reflected in our nation's 
     environmental statutes. Faithful execution of our 
     environmental laws requires effectively combating climate 
     change to minimize its potentially catastrophic impacts 
     before it is too late.
       The American people have been served by EPA Administrators, 
     Republicans and Democrats, who have embraced their 
     responsibility to protect public health and the environment. 
     Different administrators have come to different conclusions 
     about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and 
     many of their decisions have been challenged in court, 
     sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far 
     enough. But in the large majority of cases it was evident to 
     us that they put the public's welfare ahead of private 
     interests. Scott Pruitt has not demonstrated this same 
     commitment.
       Thank you for considering our views.
       (All signatories are former EPA employees)

  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam President, I rise today in strong opposition to 
the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Admininstrator of the 
Environmental Protection Administration.
  When looking at Mr. Pruitt's record on environmental issues, it is 
almost hard to know where to start.
  You could examine his history of climate denial, in which he has 
repeatedly rejected the scientific consensus on the threat of climate 
change.
  You could look at his cozy relationship with the oil and gas industry 
during his tenure as attorney general of Oklahoma.
  You could argue that Scott Pruitt represents the same corporate 
interests and crony capitalism that have long prevailed inside the 
Beltway.
  You could discuss his refusal to answer basic questions from the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, even as he asks those same 
Senators to vote for his confirmation.
  Any one of these items should be disqualifying for a candidate tasked 
with leading the EPA, but the list of problems with Mr. Pruitt's 
nomination goes even beyond those concerns.
  His nomination threatens the very foundations of the department he 
has been tasked with leading--whether you are talking about the Clean 
Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Superfund Program, or any of the 
other cornerstone environmental protections Americans have long 
enjoyed.
  Scott Pruitt has made a career out of characterizing these 
environmental protections as red-tape, as job-killers, and as 
government overreach.
  That might be good rhetoric when you are arguing on the side of 
corporate polluters, as Mr. Pruitt has spent his career doing.
  It might be good rhetoric when you are trying to mask the significant 
benefits of the laws you are fighting to unravel.
  It might be good rhetoric, but it is not reality. The reality is that 
our Nation's environmental laws are designed to provide basic 
protections for human health and quality of life.

[[Page S1373]]

  But that fact is often obscured by the rhetoric that Mr. Pruitt 
peddles. And since the EPA and many of its foundational laws were 
created decades ago, it can be easy to forget what the world looked 
like before we had strong environmental protections.
  So before we confirm an EPA Administrator intent on dismantling every 
one of those protections, let's do a quick history lesson.
  Democrat, Republican, or Independent, one thing that Americans agree 
on is the need for clean water. In fact, according to a 2016 Gallup 
poll, 61 percent of all Americans are ``a great deal'' worried--not a 
little worried, but a great deal worried--about pollution of drinking 
water, and 56 percent of all Americans are ``a great deal'' worried--
again, a great deal worried--about the pollution of rivers, lakes, and 
reservoirs.
  Among hunters and anglers, a group that many of my friends across the 
aisle claim to champion, those numbers are even more dramatic. A 2015 
poll found that nearly 90 percent thought that the Clean Water Act was 
a good thing, and 75 percent supported the application of the Clean 
Water Act to headwater streams and wetlands.
  Now, at a time when a strong majority of Americans are so concerned 
about the quality of their drinking water and the cleanliness of 
waterways across the country and support the application and 
enforcement of the Clean Water Act, it seems that we should be working 
to strengthen the protections that keep our water clean.
  But that is not what Scott Pruitt has done, and it is not what he 
will do if we allow him to become the Administrator of the EPA. No, 
instead Scott Pruitt has worked tirelessly to gut the Clean Water Act.
  His lawsuits have sought to undermine the fundamental protections 
afforded to our waterways to the detriment of the health of our 
families and our environment.
  He has sued to prevent the Clean Water Rule, a court-ordered 
clarification of the protections of the Clean Water Act, from going 
into effect.
  He has joined lawsuits and filed briefs to make it easier for mining 
companies to dump waste and fill material anywhere they want, 
destroying mountain streams and negatively impacting water quality.
  Scott Pruitt didn't feel that the EPA should even have the authority 
to conduct a survey about industrial farming practices that can 
generate toxic runoff that could find its way into our rivers and 
streams and drinking water resources.
  He has even joined big polluters in a lawsuit against a collaborative 
effort by Chesapeake Bay States and the EPA to clean up the bay, 
despite the fact that it had nothing to do with Oklahoma.
  I think that Mr. Pruitt's views can best be summed up in his own 
words. He claims that, ``the EPA was never intended to be our Nation's 
frontline environmental regulator.''
  Well, I have news for Scott Pruitt. When the EPA doesn't lead, cost-
cutting measures undertaken by a State can lead to thousands of 
Americans being poisoned by lead in their water. When the EPA doesn't 
lead, polluters, blinded by the pursuit of profit above all else, can 
dump unlimited and unregulated amounts of pollution into our water.
  This isn't speculation. We have seen it before. The Clean Water Act 
was passed in 1972 in large part due to public outrage after the 
Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969. Yes, the river caught fire. This 
sounds outlandish and incredible to us today, but perhaps even more 
astounding is the fact that this was not necessarily abnormal. It 
wasn't the result of some single incident or accidental spill. This was 
the result of years of pollution and unsound practices employed by many 
different industries across the economic spectrum.
  The Washington Post notes that the Cuyahoga burned at least 13 times, 
and that is just one river. River fires were recorded in Maryland, 
Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and other States as well. So it 
becomes clear that this was a pervasive problem, and a national 
problem, and a problem that had to be addressed on the national level. 
And we did address it largely through the Clean Water Act, but we have 
to continue that progress, not roll it back. Even now, in places like 
China, where strong federal clean water laws don't exist, these river 
fires still occur.
  Scott Pruitt calls himself an ``advocate against the EPA's activist 
agenda.''
  If fighting for clean water is an activist agenda; if enforcing sound 
environmental practices that safeguard public health is an activist 
agenda; if protecting wetlands that not only provide critical wildlife 
habitat, but also act as vital buffers that protect our communities 
from flooding, is an activist agenda; well, then I guess you can call 
me an activist, and his record has shown that Scott Pruitt is anything 
but. And his attacks on the Clean Water Act aren't unique. Mr. Pruitt 
has sued the EPA time and again in an effort to dismantle the Clean Air 
Act.
  The Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970, at a time that many of our 
Nation's cities and industrial regions were blanketed in smog. In the 
47 years since the passage of the law, the Clean Air Act has proven to 
be one of the most effective public health measures ever taken in this 
country. Under the Clean Air Act, we have achieved 70 percent 
reductions in the levels of six of the most dangerous air pollutants.
  Under the Clean Air Act, new heavy-duty trucks and buses became 99 
percent cleaner than those vehicles were in the 1970s. Under the Clean 
Air Act, lead was banned from gasoline, ending a significant health 
risk--one that was particularly dangerous for children. It was the 
Clean Air Act that gave us the tools to drastically cut the pollutants 
that cause acid rain. The Clean Air Act helps to protect downwind 
States like New Jersey from pollution emitted by power plants in other 
States. The Clean Air Act has been used to phase out pollutants that 
destroy the ozone layer, yielding significant health benefits including 
a reduction in skin cancer. The Clean Air Act has been used to reduce 
mercury from power plants, preventing tens of thousands of premature 
deaths, heart attacks, and asthma attacks. The Clean Air Act has helped 
reduce pollution at our National Parks, supporting tourism and local 
economies across the country. And in 2007, the Supreme Court affirmed 
the Clean Air Act's role in the environmental crisis of our time, the 
fight to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect against the threat 
of climate change.
  It is worth noting that, since the Clean Air Act became law, the 
Nation's gross domestic product grew by 246 percent--so much for job-
killing regulations.
  But in spite of these benefits, benefits that accrue to every 
American and benefits that save lives and reduce disease, Scott Pruitt 
has a record a mile long trying to dismantle the Clean Air Act.
  He sued the EPA over cross-state air pollution rules. He sued the EPA 
over mercury and air toxin limits. He sued the EPA when they tried to 
reduce smog. He sued the EPA when they limited pollution in national 
parks. And he sued the EPA when they proposed limiting carbon pollution 
from power plants.
  Mr. Pruitt's record has repeatedly demonstrated that he has no 
interest in maintaining basic environmental standards. I have no reason 
to believe that he would behave any differently if confirmed as EPA 
Administrator. But Scott Pruitt's disdain for the EPA goes beyond even 
the lawsuits he filed.
  In questions for the record for the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, Mr. Pruitt was asked to name even one EPA regulation he 
supported and he couldn't name even one.
  He wasn't put on the spot. These were written questions, which Mr. 
Pruitt had ample time to consider and answer. And yet he couldn't 
produce a single example of an EPA standard he supported.
  An EPA standard that immediately comes to my mind is Superfund--a 
bipartisan program committed to ensuring that polluters pay to clean up 
their toxic dump sites.
  New Jersey has the most Superfund sites of any State in the Nation--
114 total. These sites threaten public health, stifle economic 
opportunity, and undermine quality of life.
  They are a toxic legacy from a time when we had no watchdog to 
prevent corporations from dumping their waste into our soil or our 
water.
  Today there are over 1,300 Superfund sites throughout the Nation--13 
sites in

[[Page S1374]]

Alabama, 37 sites in Wisconsin, 53 sites in Florida, and even 7 sites 
in Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt's home State.
  This is a problem that transcends geographic and partisan divides. It 
is a challenge we should be united in our commitment to fixing. Yet Mr. 
Pruitt wouldn't even cite Superfund as an example of an EPA regulation 
he supported. If he doesn't support the program, how can we trust him 
to implement it?
  EPA is absolutely critical in bringing the companies responsible for 
pollution to the table, creating strategies for cleaning up these 
sites, and overseeing the clean-ups themselves.
  How can we trust Mr. Pruitt to negotiate on behalf of our communities 
if he can't even bring himself to admit the value of the law?
  The fact that a program as basic and bipartisan as Superfund didn't 
garner Scott Pruitt's support should be of concern to us all.
  The U.S. has many environmental challenges left to confront, but we 
have also made a lot of progress since the days before we had strong 
environmental protections.
  We can't turn back the clock to the days when rivers caught on fire, 
when smog choked our cities, and when corporations were free to dump 
unlimited chemicals into the soil and water. Yet, that is exactly what 
Scott Pruitt has spent his career doing. His tenure as Oklahoma 
Attorney General provides example after example of legal actions taken 
on behalf of moneyed corporate polluters, but he failed to provide even 
one real example of action he took against polluters on behalf of the 
people of Oklahoma.
  I take my responsibility to provide advice and consent to the 
President on his nominees very seriously, and as I have looked into Mr. 
Pruitt's record, one thing has become abundantly clear. Scott Pruitt 
doesn't work for you. He works for the polluting industries that have 
bankrolled his political career. His nomination to head the EPA poses 
significant risk to our Nation's most basic environmental protections.
  Protections like the Superfund program, the Clean Air Act, and the 
Clean Water Act have provided a legacy of health and wellness for 
millions of Americans. And time and time again, Mr. Pruitt has proven 
untrustworthy as a protector of that legacy.
  For that reason, I oppose his nomination as Administrator of the EPA 
and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. BROWN. 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. MORAN. 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. MORAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
be speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.