[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.