[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1374-S1381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Agriculture

  Mr. MORAN. Madam President, the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service is one of the best opportunities we have--and some of the best 
stewards we have for caring for lands in Kansas are our farmers and 
ranchers. What a great combination in the public-private partnership 
when we work together to improve our water quality and quantity, work 
to make sure our air is cleaner, make certain, as best we can, that the 
dust doesn't blow in Kansas.
  While we talk about environmental issues, I want to mention the work 
that goes on in my home State and places across the country with a 
partnership that occurs by the Department of Agriculture--USDA--its 
agency, the NRCS, and landowners in my State.
  I want to highlight the circumstances those farmers and ranchers find 
themselves in today. In 2016, the price of wheat hit a decade low. 
Wheat prices fell from a high of $7.60 a bushel in 2013 to $4.11 per 
bushel in 2016, from $7.60 to $4.11 in just a short period of time.
  Unfortunately, those prices have continued to stay low. Often in 
Kansas, when commodity prices are a challenge for those who raise 
crops, we are able to supplement our income by the price of cattle--our 
ability to raise quality beef and to sell that in markets and to 
compensate for the challenges that occur on the crop side of 
agriculture.
  Unfortunately, the same thing has happened in the livestock market as 
well. Live cattle prices dropped from $166 per hundredweight in January 
of 2015 to $132 per hundredweight in January of 2016; again, a fall 
from $166 to $132.
  Those things combined, low commodity prices, low price for wheat, low 
prices for cattle, mean that agriculture in rural America is hurting 
greatly. This is a tremendous challenge and appearing to be perhaps the 
most difficult time that agriculture producers, farmers, and ranchers 
face in the Midwest since the thirties.
  I have come to speak about this today. Senator Roberts, the chairman 
who chairs the Agriculture Committee, is having a hearing of the 
Agriculture Committee in Kansas during the next few days. I appreciate 
the opportunity he is providing Kansans to have input as the process 
begins for a new farm bill. I congratulate him and welcome the input 
that everyday folks who earn a living in agriculture will have as a 
result of his efforts.

  What I want to highlight today is that with the circumstances so 
challenging, we need to do things that reduce the input cost associated 
with production agriculture. But the focus I want to make today is that 
we need every market possible for our farmers and ranchers to sell 
into. Ninety-five percent of the mouths to feed, 95 percent of the 
consumers are outside the United States, and our ability to survive in 
agriculture in Kansas and this country is related to our ability to 
export those agriculture commodities, as well as food products, around 
the globe.
  In the confirmation hearings that I have been involved in based upon 
my committee assignments and in addition to conversations with the 
nominee to be the Secretary of Agriculture, Governor Perdue, I have 
highlighted time and time again the importance of exports.
  If we face this struggle--a struggle we do absolutely face today--a 
way we can help improve that circumstance is to sell more grains, more 
meat products, more beef, more pork into foreign country markets. It is 
not happening the way it needs to happen to lift the prices and 
therefore increase the chances that farmers and ranchers will survive 
the difficult and challenging economic circumstances.
  I almost said ``as an aside.'' Let me mention another challenge. It 
really isn't an aside, it is so important. We have difficult times in 
agriculture. It is a cyclical world, and prices are up and prices are 
down based upon the laws of supply and demand. But in difficult times, 
we have always in the past been able to count upon a lender, a banker 
who is willing to help that farmer, that rancher get through difficult 
times.
  The regulatory environment our bankers now face, particularly in 
rural communities where there is a relationship--we often operate in 
banks in my State, and certainly in rural communities across Kansas, as 
a result of a relationship. So our bankers--those who lend money to 
farmers--know those farmers. They know their families. They know their 
parents, their grandparents. They were the financier. They were the 
ones able to lend working capital to farmers in good times and bad.
  Our regulators and I have visited with the Officer of the Comptroller 
of the Currency, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, the state banking 
commissioner in our State, all with the message that in these difficult 
times, we can't let the consequences of Dodd-Frank overwhelm the 
ability for a banker to continue to make decisions about lending money 
to agriculture producers. We can't let the authority of making that 
decision, based upon long generations of relationships between those in 
agriculture and those in financing agriculture, be overcome by the 
rules and regulations that followed the passage of Dodd-Frank, 
particularly as it relates to those relationships with community banks 
and lenders.
  So while it is challenging in agriculture due to the prices, one of 
the reasons we have been able to survive over the years in low-price 
times is because of that relationship and understanding.
  I know this farm family--this is the banker talking--I know this farm 
family, and I have lent money to them for a long time. I lent money to 
their father or their grandfather, their mother

[[Page S1375]]

or their grandmother. They have the integrity, the character, and the 
ability to repay.
  If the lending in rural America becomes nothing more than a computer 
program in which you punch in the numbers and character becomes 
something that is irrelevant--there is not a computer program to 
measure character. If we lose the opportunity for a relationship 
developed between a lender and a farmer, we lose the ability to make 
things work in difficult times. Those times are with us.
  The primary point I would like to make today is that we need exports 
and we need them now. And while there is always a debate about the 
value of a particular trade agreement--and that debate is useful--we 
ought never lose sight that there is no real debate about the value of 
exports. So we need to put in place the mechanisms that allow farmers 
and ranchers and others in my State to be able to export a product 
around the globe.
  I would encourage the administration and I would encourage Members of 
Congress, as we develop our policies in this new session, to make 
certain that exports are front and center in our economic policy 
because the survival of the folks I represent in Kansas and the 
communities in which they live is in jeopardy if we don't get those 
markets back and if we don't retain those markets.
  Exports are important to us. We can't afford not to pursue each and 
every one of them. If we are not going to have multilateral trade 
agreements, we need to have bilateral trade agreements, and we can't 
wait very long for those agreements to take place.
  Again, 95 percent of the consumers live outside the United States, 
and our ability in Kansas to have a bright future is determined by the 
ability to connect with those consumers outside the United States.
  If I can take just one more moment to also point out that I have 
requested USAID and the Department of Agriculture in our food and 
hunger programs around the globe to increase the role that wheat and 
other commodities play in feeding a hungry world. We want to sell 
commodities in the export market, but as we develop our programs to 
combat hunger, we can get something that is very noble and something 
very valuable--helping people around the globe be able to go to bed 
with a full stomach is a desirable and noble goal, and the utilization 
of an increasing amount of agriculture or commodities grown in the 
United States in that effort would benefit farmers in our country, as 
well. It is the proverbial win/win. The noble accomplishment of helping 
people fight back food insecurity and at the same time creating an 
additional opportunity for the export of wheat, for example, which, 
because of significant amounts of harvest, is in an overabundant 
supply--is in abundant supply here in the United States.
  Madam President, thank you for the opportunity to visit with my 
colleagues here on the Senate floor today and to express the desire to 
work with each of them as we develop the efforts to make certain that 
exports are front and center, particularly as they relate to 
agricultural interest of the United States.
  Madam President, I yield my time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, my friend from Kansas is here. A lot of 
people around the country think there is probably not much we agree on. 
I want to say that I agree with just about everything the Senator from 
Kansas just said. And the fact that 95 percent of the world's markets 
are outside of our borders--if we lose sight of that, forget about the 
value of exports; we make a huge mistake.
  I was a supporter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I believe the 
Senator from Kansas was, as well. Some people are saying: Well, we need 
to forget all about that, and what we need to do is renegotiate NAFTA.
  In the context of negotiating the transpacific trade agreement, we 
negotiated NAFTA. I hope you won't throw out that baby with the bath 
water as we go forward.
  I commend the Senator for his remarks and say how much I enjoyed 
working with him on many issues. I hope to work with him again.
  Madam President, I mentioned earlier today before the Presiding 
Officer took the chair that I received a lot of letters, emails, phone 
calls, and faxes from Delawareans who are concerned about the 
nomination of Mr. Pruitt to lead the EPA. As of today, my office has 
received a total of 7 letters supporting Mr. Pruitt's nomination and we 
have received 1,880 letters opposing his nomination--remarkable 
numbers. Please compare this number to the 278 letters my office 
received opposing the nomination of Congressman Tom Price to lead the 
Department of Health and Human Services. That is pretty amazing. The 
Republican nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, 
278 letters against; Mr. Pruitt, 1,880 letters and emails against. 
Delawareans are clearly paying attention, and they are clearly 
concerned by the idea of Mr. Pruitt being charged with safeguarding our 
environment and our health.
  I want to take a moment to read a letter sent to me--I have gotten a 
lot of letters--a letter sent to me last week from a woman named 
Danielle D., a new mother and small business owner who lives in 
Wilmington with her infant son. Danielle wrote to me because her 
concerns go beyond politics and to the core values of giving our 
children the best lives possible. Danielle writes:

       Dear Senator Carper, I am reaching out to you today as both 
     a new mother and a small business owner urging you to oppose 
     Scott Pruitt's nomination as Administrator of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency.
       As a business owner, I support a number of President 
     Trump's cabinet nominations and many of his pro-business 
     policies. But there are very few policy decisions that touch 
     every facet of our lives like environmental policies do. Our 
     environment affects our health, our economy and our everyday 
     lives. The decisions we now make will affect Americans for 
     generations to come.

  She goes on to say:

       My son is 5 months old. Like any parent, I can only hope I 
     am able to advance my son's life by leaps and bounds, as my 
     parents did for me.
       However, I am extremely concerned that, should Mr. Pruitt 
     be chosen as the next Administrator of the EPA, the decisions 
     we make today will make it nearly impossible for me to leave 
     my son a better environment than the one I brought him into.
       In short, we need an EPA Administrator who will work to 
     prove America is the best when it comes to environmental 
     policy. Mr. Pruitt is not that person.

  I share this letter today so that our colleagues know that my 
constituents and, indeed, Americans across the country do care deeply 
about the person who will lead the EPA, although they may support other 
nominees of President Trump. Those who have contacted us want to know 
that the individual leading the EPA is on their side and that the first 
question that person will ask is, How will this affect the environment 
and how will this affect the health of the least of these, like 
Danielle's 5-month-old son?
  Clearly, thousands upon thousands are afraid or fearful that Scott 
Pruitt doesn't care to ask those questions and that he will not be an 
advocate for the American people whom the EPA is charged with 
protecting. I share their concerns.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Madam President, I rise in support of Attorney General 
Scott Pruitt to be the next Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and I think it is important, as we are continuing 
this debate, to make a couple of things perfectly clear.
  We all, like the Senator from Delaware who has been leading the 
debate, believe in clean water, clean air, how important that is to all 
Americans, certainly important to my State, which has some of the 
cleanest water, cleanest air, the most pristine environment in the 
world. I certainly don't think any of us debate that. We all agree on 
properly disposing of waste and cleaning up contaminated sites. And 
just this past year, Congress passed very dramatic legislation, very 
important--bipartisan, by the way; I am on the Environment and Public 
Works Committee--the Toxic Substances Control Act, TSCA, which does 
that. And I think most of us agree that the EPA has an important role 
in ensuring that we have clean water--within the authority granted to 
that Agency by Congress. So I think the vast majority of this body 
agrees with that.
  But as I have been listening to my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle and their criticism of Attorney General

[[Page S1376]]

Scott Pruitt, one thing that has not come up over the past 24 hours in 
this debate--as a matter of fact, on the EPW Committee, on which I sit, 
the past 2 years, I don't think I heard my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle ever talk about this issue, and it is a very important 
issue for the country. It is the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.
  We have been debating Scott Pruitt's nomination for a while now, but 
not one of my colleagues has uttered that phrase--not one--even though 
many of my colleagues are lawyers and former law professors and former 
attorneys general themselves.
  Why is this important? Why is it important to have a debate on the 
rule of law when we are looking at Scott Pruitt's nomination?
  Well, I think it is incredibly important because if you looked at the 
EPA's actions and activities and focus over the last 8 years--the last 
8 years--it has not been an Agency that has focused on the rule of law. 
In many ways it has been a lawless Agency, a rogue Agency. So when we 
are having this debate, we need to put the debate of Scott Pruitt's 
nomination and confirmation in the context of what has happened over 
the last 8 years.
  We have had an Agency in the EPA that does not listen to States, even 
though it is required to by Federal law; that ignores the rule of law, 
as evidenced by numerous Federal court decisions rebuking it; and that 
believes it has the power to regulate every nook and cranny of American 
life--every economic activity of America. That is literally what we 
have right now with regard to our current EPA. This is not just one 
Senator making this claim. It has become the conventional wisdom and 
the common narrative with regard to this EPA in the last 8 years by a 
variety of Federal courts and law professors throughout the country.
  Let me provide a few examples. A number of my colleagues have talked 
about the waters of the United States rule, WOTUS, and how this 
aggressive, far-reaching rule claims authority--the EPA claims 
authority to regulate literally puddles and irrigation ditches 
throughout the country, an enormous power grab.
  A number of us were concerned about this. In hearings and in letters, 
I asked the previous EPA Administrator, Gina McCarthy, where she got 
the legal authority to do this. It was a pretty big deal. It took 
months to get an answer. States, under the law, are supposed to be 
consulted on this issue. States like my State, the great State of 
Alaska, were not consulted. They were ignored.
  So what happened? What happened? Thirty-two States--bipartisan by the 
way, including Alaska--sued the EPA over this law, over this 
regulation, the waters of the United States. This is a critical point. 
``Cooperative federalism,'' another term I have heard very little of in 
this debate, is the bedrock of environmental laws like the Clean Water 
Act and the Clean Air Act. The principle establishes that the States 
and the EPA are partners. Indeed, under these Federal laws, the States 
are the primary protectors and implementers of our environmental 
protection laws.
  That is in the law. That is in the Federal law. But for the past 8 
years, the EPA has consistently ignored this on major rules. The most 
dramatic is right here, the waters of the United States. Thirty-two 
States sued to stop the EPA on this regulation. What happened in the 
lawsuit? The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals put a stay on the entire 
rule, expressing serious doubts about its legality. That is one 
instance and a big deal.
  Let's look at another one, the so-called Clean Power Plan. I know the 
Presiding Officer has talked this, about how it is very concerning for 
her State of West Virginia. Whatever your views are on climate change 
and the appropriate response, there should no debate in this body that 
we have to address this issue in a way that is consistent with the U.S. 
Constitution and rule of law--no debate.
  Again, I never hear anyone talk about the rule of law on the other 
side. So this rule is promulgated. Once again, the Environmental 
Protection Agency, in the promulgation of this rule, took actions that 
the court and commentators across the political spectrum viewed as 
likely another illegal rule by the EPA.
  So, like the waters of the United States rule, numerous States and 
others sued to stop the Clean Power Plan, in which the Environmental 
Protection Agency claimed somehow they had the authority to regulate 
almost the entire U.S. energy sector. Look at the rule. That is what 
they are claiming, that Congress somehow gave them that power.
  In a previous Supreme Court case called Utility Air Regulatory Group, 
which was a lawsuit against the EPA--at the time I was serving as 
attorney general for the State of Alaska and was one of the AGs who 
initiated this suit--the EPA lost that one, and the Supreme Court and 
Justice Scalia, in writing the majority opinion stated:

       When an agency, the EPA, claims to discover in a long 
     extant statute an unheralded power to regulate a significant 
     portion of the American economy, we typically greet its 
     announcement with a measure of skepticism. We expect Congress 
     to speak clearly if it wishes to assign an agency decisions 
     of vast economic and political significance.

  In other words: EPA, you didn't have the power to regulate a huge 
swath of the American economy. The Supreme Court struck that down--
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency--so it 
was not surprising that with regard to the Clean Power Plan regulation, 
the Supreme Court of the United States put a stay on that rule. The 
Supreme Court of the United States put a stay on that rule before any 
other court, any other lower court, a district court, a court of 
appeals, had heard the arguments on that rule. Think about that. Do you 
know how many times the U.S. history that has happened? Do you know how 
many times in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court that has happened? 
Never before. It was the first time in the history of the Supreme Court 
that it saw a rule that it probably felt was so egregious that it put a 
stay on it before any other court ruled on that rule. It was pretty 
dramatic, pretty remarkable.

  Clearly, the U.S. Supreme Court has serious doubts about whether the 
EPA is acting in a lawful manner on the Clean Power Plan. If you think 
it is just conservative jurists and lawyers and Senators who hold that 
view, you would be mistaken. Here is what Laurence Tribe said about the 
EPA's authority with regard to the Clean Power Plan.
  For those of you who don't know Laurence Tribe, he is a very well-
respected constitutional law professor at Harvard but very liberal. He 
was President Obama's law professor, but he is well-respected. Here is 
what he said about the EPA's authority on this very important 
regulation. He wrote in challenging the Clean Power Plan:

       Even more fundamentally, the EPA, like every administrative 
     agency is constitutionally forbidden to exercise powers 
     Congress never delegated to it in the first place. The brute 
     fact is that the Obama administration failed to get climate 
     legislation through Congress. Yet the EPA is acting as though 
     it has the legislative authority anyway to re-engineer the 
     nation's electrical generating system and power grid. It does 
     not have this power.

  That is Laurence Tribe. He later testified in front of the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee in 2015 with regard to this regulation:

       The EPA is attempting to exercise lawmaking power that 
     belongs to Congress and the judicial power that belongs to 
     the Federal courts. Burning the Constitution should not be 
     part of our national energy policy. EPA is attempting an 
     unconstitutional trifecta: usurping the prerogatives of the 
     States, Congress and the Federal courts all at once.

  That is Laurence Tribe. That is Harvard professor Laurence Tribe, who 
believes EPA is clearly acting in an unconstitutional manner.
  It is not just losing in court and in the realm of both conservative 
and liberal leagues of public opinion; it has been the way that the EPA 
leadership, from the top to its foot soldiers, has treated the American 
people over the last 8 years--the American people whom the 
Environmental Protection Agency is supposed to serve.
  That treatment can be described in many ways as with disdain. Let me 
provide a few examples of that. On the eve of another Supreme Court 
case, which the EPA lost--this is EPA v. Michigan--EPA Administrator 
Gina McCarthy was asked on a TV show, Did she think she was going to 
win the case?
  She responded as you would think most Administrators would. She said

[[Page S1377]]

yes, she was going to win. OK. That is fine. She probably believed it 
and had good lawyers telling her that. But then she went on to say 
this:

       But even if we don't [win], it was 3 years ago. Most of 
     [the companies] are already in compliance, investments have 
     been made, and we'll catch up.

  Think about that quote. This is the head of the EPA, essentially 
saying: Even if we lose, we win. We are the Federal Government. We 
don't have to abide by the law. Those companies and American citizens 
who are abiding by the law, who are abiding by the regulations, they 
have already made investments--hundreds of millions. They are stuck. We 
win. Heads we win, tails we win. That is a remarkable statement by the 
leader of a Federal Agency who shows disdain for the law.
  Let me give you another example. My colleague and good friend from 
Colorado came down and talked about the Animas River and what happened 
there. Clearly it was a mistake. I don't believe that the EPA meant to 
do that, to spill millions of gallons of toxic waste into a river. But 
in a hearing in the EPW Committee, I asked the Administrator: Well, are 
you going to hold the EPA officials who did that to the same standard 
you would the private sector? In the private sector, in similar kinds 
of activities, the EPA has actually criminally charged people for doing 
something like that--negligence--criminally charged them.
  She looked at me and said: Senator, not only are we going to hold 
ourselves to that standard, we are going to hold ourselves to a higher 
standard.
  OK. That is a pretty good answer.
  So what has happened on the Animas River, with the EPA holding 
themselves to a higher standard? Remember, they put people in jail for 
doing this. Was anyone held responsible? Was anyone criminally charged? 
Did anyone go to jail?
  Of course not. Nothing happened.
  In my State, the EPA's disdain for my constituents has manifested 
itself in a couple of remarkable ways. First, we had the Administrator, 
former Administrator Gina McCarthy, in Alaska visiting after she came 
into office.
  There was a big Wall Street Journal article on her visit. She was 
given some gifts by Alaskans, my constituents, the people she serves. 
When she was given gifts from my constituents on her visit to my State, 
she was later asked by a reporter what she did with them according to 
the government ethics rules.
  Here is a quote from that story:

       [Gina McCarthy] has been surprised by the government ethics 
     bureaucracy and its gift guidelines. Remarking how officials 
     chased her down for a dinky North Pole--

  That is a community in Alaska--

       pin someone gave her at an event as a gift (``I threw the 
     f-ing thing away,'' she told them).

  With regard to another gift she got, a jar of moose meat from a young 
girl at a hearing in Alaska, she said that gift ``could gag a maggot.''
  This was the leader of an Agency serving the people, and yet she was 
doing it in a way that is clearly disrespectful.
  Let me talk about another incident in Alaska, in a place called 
Chicken, AK, where we have plaster miners out mining--small mining 
operations, family businesses, mining for gold.
  The EPA thought there was going to be some Clean Water Act 
violations, which they never found. So what did they do? They didn't 
talk to the local community. They did a raid--body armor, assault 
weapons--on my constituents, a raid, a military assault to find clean 
water violations, which they never found, and they never apologized for 
the raid.
  Now, you might ask: What does all this have to do with the nomination 
of Attorney General Pruitt? My answer is: Everything; everything.
  He understands that the EPA needs a serious course correction, that 
it must get back to listening to the States and following the rule of 
law and, most importantly, regaining the trust of the American people, 
which has been lost over the last 8 years due to some of the actions I 
just described.
  The American people see this. They see statements like this, and they 
know this has been an Agency that has not been acting in their 
interests and has not been acting according to the law.
  Not only does Attorney General Pruitt understand this, he emphasized 
this during his confirmation hearing--6 hours long, which I sat through 
the entire thing.
  Let me conclude by reading a few excerpts of his opening statement. 
The American people need to hear this because this is what Attorney 
General Pruitt is going to do when he leads the EPA. He said his 
priorities were:
  First, under our Constitution, the role the EPA plays in protecting 
the environment is defined by statute, just as statutes limit every 
Federal Agency.
  Members of this body--the Senate--and the House of Representatives 
have worked tirelessly over decades to set the balance in environmental 
policies through laws that have been passed. The EPA's role is to 
administer those laws faithfully.
  As attorney general of Oklahoma, he stated: I saw examples where the 
Agency became dissatisfied with the tools Congress had given it to 
address certain issues and bootstrapped its own powers and tools 
through rulemaking. This, unfortunately, has only resulted in 
protracted litigation, where the courts suspended most of these rules 
after years of delay.
  In the meantime, we lost the opportunity for true environmental 
protection as a nation. This approach is not right. So getting back to 
the rule of law, that is No. 1 for Attorney General Pruitt.
  Second, he said:

       Cooperative federalism must be respected and applied by the 
     EPA with regard to our environmental laws. Congress has 
     wisely and appropriately directed the EPA through our 
     environmental statutes to utilize the expertise and resources 
     of the States to better protect the environment, and for the 
     States to remain our nation's frontline environmental 
     implementers and enforcers. If we truly want to advance and 
     achieve cleaner air and water the States must be partners and 
     not mere passive instruments of federal will. If confirmed, I 
     will utilize the relationships I have forged with my 
     counterparts in the States to ensure that EPA returns to its 
     proper role, rather than using a heavy hand to coerce the 
     States into effectuating EPA policies.

  Cooperative federalism--that is in the law, and he wants to uphold 
it.
  Third, and finally, he said:

       It is critical to me that EPA also truly listen to the 
     diverse views of the American people, and learn from them. If 
     confirmed as Administrator, I am committed to ensuring EPA's 
     decisions are conducted through open processes that take into 
     account the full range of views of the American people, 
     including the economic consequences of any regulation.
       Environmental regulations should not occur in an economic 
     vacuum. We can simultaneously pursue the mutual goals of 
     environmental protection and economic growth. But that can 
     only happen if EPA listens--listens to the views of all 
     interested stakeholders, including the States, so that it can 
     determine how to realize its mission while considering the 
     pragmatic impacts of its decisions on jobs, communities, and 
     most importantly, families.

  Finally, in the closing of his opening statement, Attorney General 
Pruitt said this:

       My time as Attorney General of Oklahoma afforded me the 
     opportunity to travel my state meeting farmers, ranchers, 
     landowners, and small business owners of all sorts. These are 
     good people--hardworking Americans who want to do the right 
     thing by the environment. They want the air that their 
     children breathe and the waters in which they swim to be 
     clean. They want to follow the law. But recently they have 
     felt hopeless, subject to a never ending torrent of new 
     regulations that only a lawyer can understand. They fear the 
     EPA, and that just shouldn't be the case. If confirmed, I 
     will work tirelessly to ensure that the EPA acts lawfully, 
     sensibly, and with those hardworking Americans ever in mind.

  That is how he ended his testimony.
  Scott Pruitt is the right person to lead the EPA. We have gotten to 
the point, as he noted in his testimony, where millions of Americans, 
including some of my constituents in Chicken, AK, certainly have come 
to fear their own Federal Government, especially when it acts in a 
lawless fashion.
  He is exactly the right person, with the right qualifications and the 
right emphasis to fix this problem, and I encourage all of my 
colleagues to support the confirmation vote we are going to make on him 
in a few hours.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Madam President, no one wants to live on a dirty planet. 
Before we created the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA, nearly 
50 years ago, rivers actually caught fire from pollution, smog covered 
our cities, and powerplants spewed arsenic

[[Page S1378]]

and mercury into the sky with impunity.
  In the years since, the EPA has been at the vanguard of the effort to 
protect the air we breathe and the water we drink.
  This work is not easy, and the person who leads the EPA has a tough 
job. It requires toughness and fortitude to fight back against 
polluters and special interests.
  In all the years the EPA has been around, we would be hard-pressed to 
find someone more hostile to the Agency's fundamental mission or as 
less suited to leading it than Scott Pruitt is.
  As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt organized, led, or 
participated in virtually every challenge to the EPA's work during his 
time in office. His lawsuits have, among other things, sought to 
prevent the EPA from enforcing rules that keep our water safe, protect 
our air from harmful pollutants, like mercury and arsenic, and limit 
the carbon pollution that causes climate change.
  These lawsuits beg the question: Does Scott Pruitt believe the EPA 
should even exist? In the weeks and months since he was nominated, Mr. 
Pruitt has gone out of his way to try and smooth over his record and 
say what he thinks we want to hear, but we can't fall for it.
  Instead of listening to what he is saying now, let's examine more 
closely what he has done as Oklahoma's attorney general.
  His record is troubling. Throughout his term of office, Mr. Pruitt 
has been very cozy with fossil fuel companies and affiliated interest 
groups.
  A 2014 investigation by the New York Times revealed that energy 
lobbyists drafted letters for Mr. Pruitt to send on State stationary to 
the EPA against the Obama administration's environmental regulations.
  The CEO of Continental Energy--an oil and gas company based in 
Oklahoma--served as the campaign chairman for his reelection bid. We 
just got word yesterday that a State district judge in Oklahoma ordered 
the attorney general's office to turn over as many as 3,000 documents 
related to Mr. Pruitt's communications with oil, gas, and coal groups 
during his time in office. Unfortunately, we will not get a chance to 
see what these documents reveal before voting on his confirmation.
  Based on his record and associations, however, I think we can make an 
educated guess that these documents will reveal the extent of Mr. 
Pruitt's ties to fossil fuel interests, and we have no reason to 
believe he will renounce these connections if confirmed to serve as EPA 
Administrator.
  He also fought relentlessly against the EPA's efforts to establish 
basic limits on smog, arsenic, mercury, and other dangerous air 
pollutants.
  Mr. Pruitt, for example, sued the EPA not once but twice to overturn 
the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards. These standards would prevent 
40,000 pounds of mercury emissions every year and would help keep our 
food supply safe from contamination.
  Mr. Pruitt has also repeatedly questioned whether climate change is 
real.
  In an op-ed in the Washington Times, Mr. Pruitt refused to accept 
settled science that humans contribute to climate change. He said there 
are ``a wide range of viewpoints regarding the extent to which man 
contributes to climate change.''
  In the National Review, Mr. Pruitt said ``scientists continue to 
disagree about the degree and extent of global warming.''
  The fact is, 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is 
real and that human beings contribute to it. I hardly think 97 percent 
of scientists agreeing constitutes a wide range of viewpoints on 
climate change and the extent to which man contributes to it.
  From his perch as Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued to 
prevent President Obama's Clean Power Plan to cut carbon emissions from 
taking effect. He argued that the Federal Government doesn't have the 
authority to regulate carbon emissions. This is wrong.
  The Supreme Court ruled twice--first in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 
and again in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA in 2014--that the EPA 
has the authority to regulate carbon emissions as pollution under the 
Clean Air Act.
  If confirmed, Mr. Pruitt has promised to kill the Clean Power Plan 
and undo much of the positive work that President Obama did to address 
climate change.
  Mr. Pruitt also has a track record of undermining enforcement of 
environmental laws and regulations. Shortly after becoming Oklahoma's 
attorney general in 2010, Mr. Pruitt gave us a taste of what is to come 
at the EPA when he eliminated the Environmental Protection Unit within 
the Oklahoma attorney general's office.
  For years, this unit investigated water contamination from 
refineries, lead paint waste, and illegal dumping. In its place, he 
created the innocuous sounding Federalism Unit. Unlike the unit he 
eliminated, whose mission was to protect the health and safety of 
Oklahomans, the Federalism Unit's job is to handle all of Mr. Pruitt's 
legal challenges against the EPA. Over the past 3 years, Mr. Pruitt has 
increased the budget of the Federalism Unit by over 700 percent, and 
the taxpayers of Oklahoma get to foot that bill.
  Mr. Pruitt's record paints a clear picture: His priorities directly 
conflict with the EPA's mission to protect public health and the 
environment. He is much more concerned about protecting corporate 
interests than keeping our communities healthy and safe from pollution.
  Over the past few months, I have heard from thousands of my 
constituents who have urged me to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I 
would like to read two of the letters I have received. Georgia is a 
Ph.D. student at the University of Hawaii. She wrote:

       I strongly oppose Scott Pruitt's confirmation as EPA 
     Administrator. Mr. Pruitt is a climate change denier who has 
     actively worked against the mission of the agency.

  As a Ph.D. student in science, I know we need an EPA administrator 
that respects science and supports clean air, clean water, and a 
healthy environment. Pruitt is the wrong choice for our nation and must 
be rejected.
  Keiko from Kaneohe also wrote to explain what this fight means to 
her.

       This is not a bipartisan issue, but it is as much an 
     American issue as it is a Hawaiian issue, a human issue, and 
     an issue of all inhabitants of Papa, mother earth. I ask that 
     you continue to be vigilant and `onipa'a in the face of 
     climate change deniers . . . Mahalo for looking out for 
     everyone living today and going to be born tomorrow.

  We have come too far over the past 8 years to let someone like Scott 
Pruitt destroy the progress we have made. I urge my colleagues to 
oppose this nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I also rise today to oppose the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  I believe the President should be able to assemble his or her own 
team, and I understand that elections have consequences and that a 
President should be able to put forth his or her policy agenda. I voted 
on this floor many times in support of nominees with whom I have policy 
differences, but they have been qualified persons, experienced in their 
field, who believe in the fundamental mission of the agency they are 
tasked to lead. That is not the case with Attorney General Pruitt. Mr. 
Pruitt has extreme environmental policy views, and he has zero 
experience running the Environmental Protection Agency. In fact, he 
does not believe in the fundamental mission of the EPA. Attorney 
General Pruitt made his name opposing EPA rules that protect human 
health and the environment--fighting against clean air and clean water, 
disregarding the science behind the EPA's protections for human health 
and the environment on behalf of for-profit special interests, not the 
public interest.
  He has brought 19 suits against the EPA. Eight are currently pending 
in courts, and if confirmed, he won't recuse himself from all the 
pending cases. As a lawyer and especially as your State's top lawyer, 
you shouldn't change sides in litigation. It is just not right. There 
may be an ethics violation here. I have never heard of a lawyer 
representing both sides of a case.
  Let's look at just a few examples from his litigation records, 
starting with his opposition to clean air. Mr. Pruitt is leading 
litigation against the EPA's ozone or smog rule. In 2015 the EPA 
revised its ambiant air standards

[[Page S1379]]

for ground level ozone. The EPA was long overdue in revising its ozone 
standards to protect public health. It even had to be sued by States 
and environmental organizations to make sure the standards adequately 
protected human health. High concentrations of ozone are bad for public 
health, children, and older adults, and people with lung diseases such 
as asthma are especially vulnerable.
  The EPA set a standard of 70 parts per billion. This standard is 
based on the best science, which included thousands of studies 
analyzing the effects of ozone on public health. In addition, the EPA 
built in flexibility for States that would have trouble meeting the 
standard. But the Oklahoma attorney general currently leads a four-
State charge to do away with the rule.
  Mr. Pruitt thinks it is OK for powerplants to emit unhealthy levels 
of mercury and other toxins into the air. In 2011, the EPA passed the 
mercury and air toxics standards. This rule limits emissions from 
powerplants of mercury, arsenic, and other metals. Like the ozone 
standard, this rule was long overdue, and the EPA was forced by the 
courts to develop the standard.
  The science is well established that these toxins are a serious 
public health threat. Fortunately, there are proven and available 
technologies to limit the emissions. Scott Pruitt fought the mercury 
and air toxics standards, and he is still litigating in court against 
the standards even though the vast majority of powerplants in the 
Nation are currently in compliance with the standards.
  Just to show you how serious this is in my home State of New Mexico, 
pregnant women and children can only eat a very small amount of fish 
from the streams of New Mexico. Our streams are polluted with mercury. 
The levels are so high that vulnerable populations are advised to 
severely limit their consumption. Scott Pruitt wants to continue this 
pollution of our streams.
  Mr. Pruitt testified in the hearing before the EPW Committee that he 
saw a role for the EPA to address pollution that crosses State 
boundaries, but his litigation history does not support that testimony. 
As Oklahoma attorney general, he fought the EPA's cross-state air 
pollution rule, a rule designed to reduce powerplant emissions across 
State lines that cause smog and pollution and health problems in 
downwind States. Especially, the cross-state air pollution rule reduces 
sulfur dioxide, or SO 2, and oxides of nitrogen or NOX 
emissions. NOX emissions contribute to fine particle and 
soot pollution and to ground level ozone formation, otherwise known as 
smog. Even though this pollution affects the air and health of downwind 
States, Mr. Pruitt sided with the powerplants.
  Air pollution is not the only problem that crosses State lines. River 
and stream pollution does not stop at State boundaries either. The EPA 
and the U.S. Army passed the clean water rule in 2015. The rule 
clarified a dizzying set of Supreme Court cases defining protected 
water. The EPA and the Army reviewed the best science, reviewing more 
than 1200 peer-reviewed public scientific studies to define protected 
waters.
  New Mexico is an arid State. We have very little surface water. We 
need to protect all of our surface water for domestic, agricultural, 
industrial, and recreational uses. By the way, the EPA and the Army's 
definition of surface waters is no broader than my own State's 
definition of surface waters. New Mexico's definition is appropriate 
and reasonable to protect our precious surface water.

  The attorney general of Oklahoma is fighting the clean water rule, 
too, even though it protects against cross-state pollution.
  Here is one more example--the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan 
is our country's best effort to address climate change. We know that 
climate change is happening. We know that the climate change is 
primarily caused by humans. We know that powerplants are a major 
contributor. We know that we need to take action and that we need to 
take action fast to protect our planet. The Clean Power Plan 
significantly reduces carbon dioxide emissions from existing, modified, 
and future powerplants. The Clean Power Plan was developed based on the 
best science. It was developed based on a tremendous amount of input 
from the States, industry, environmentalists, and others. It provides 
States with a lot of flexibility with how to comply. Mr. Pruitt, true 
to form, is litigating against the Clean Power Plan. Mr. Pruitt 
apparently does not understand the science of climate change.
  In the National Review in 2016, he wrote: ``Scientists continue to 
disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and its 
connection to the actions of mankind.'' During his confirmation 
hearing, he similarly stated:

       Science tells us that the climate is changing and human 
     activity in some manner impacts that change. The human 
     ability to measure the extent of that impact is subject to 
     continuing debate and dialogue as well as they should be.

  That is not what science tells us. That is maybe what fossil fuel 
special interests tell him, but that is not what science tells us. His 
views are not consistent with the scientific consensus on climate 
change. The 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change found it ``extremely likely'' that more than half of the global 
warming that occurred between 1951 and 2010 was a consequence of human 
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
  So many of the decisions made and the regulations passed by the EPA 
rely heavily upon good science. It is absolutely critical that the EPA 
Administrator understand and use the best science.
  I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt understands and will use the best 
science if he is confirmed to lead the EPA.
  When developing regulations, the EPA must first follow the law's 
requirements to protect human health and the environment. Then, within 
the law's requirements, the EPA should take account of input and 
information from all sources--from industry, environmentalists, States, 
and public agencies.
  I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt will follow the law's requirements 
to protect public health and the environment, and I am not convinced 
that he will take into account the input of all stakeholders. 
Throughout his career as attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has aligned 
solely with industry and against public health and the environment. He 
has no record of aligning with the public or of securing our 
environment for the future.
  As attorney general, he engaged in a scorched earth policy against 
environmental regulations. He dismantled his environmental protection 
unit. He became very close politically to the energy industry. He 
adopted letters written by energy lobbyists almost verbatim, and then 
submitted them on behalf of the State of Oklahoma in Federal legal 
proceedings.
  As chair of the Republican Attorneys General Association, he became 
even more closely aligned with the fossil fuel-related companies.
  Mr. Pruitt's record is one-sided and extreme, and it does not give me 
confidence that as EPA Administrator he would have any commitment to 
protecting the public health now or protecting the environment for 
future generations.
  Finally, I am concerned that Mr. Pruitt has not shown and does not 
have the proper respect for tribal sovereignty. Oklahoma is home to 39 
tribes. Mr. Pruitt's litigation history as attorney general has 
consistently been anti-tribe. As vice chair of the Senate Committee on 
Indian Affairs, I pay special attention to a nominee's record on tribal 
issues, especially nominees for agencies that will deal with tribes on 
a government-to-government basis, like the EPA.
  As Oklahoma's top attorney, Mr. Pruitt routinely sought out ways to 
fight tribal sovereignty--even all the way to the Highest Court in the 
land. In Dollar General Corp. v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, 
Mr. Pruitt filed an amicus brief in support of a corporation that 
refused to submit to tribal jurisdiction. Mr. Pruitt's side lost. This 
case is a prime example of Mr. Pruitt's misguided views of tribe and 
their inherent sovereignty. Indian Country needs an EPA Administrator 
who respects tribal sovereignty. I am not convinced Mr. Pruitt does.
  Just recently we had in town the National Council of American 
Indians. They submitted a letter on January 18. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be printed in the Record.

[[Page S1380]]

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

                                              National Congress of


                                             American Indians,

                                 Washington, DC, January 18, 2016.
     Re Indian Country's Concerns with EPA Administrator Nominee 
         Scott Pruitt.

     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas Carper,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and 
         Public Works, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: On behalf 
     of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the 
     oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian and 
     Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of 
     Tribal governments and communities, I am writing to express 
     our deep concern with the nomination of Oklahoma Attorney 
     General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) based on his history of 
     fighting environmental regulations and the new 
     Administration's statements denying the existence of climate 
     change. The continuing impacts of climate change are a major 
     concern of Tribal Nations and, before this Committee votes to 
     move forward with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to 
     lead the EPA, it must thoroughly consider the potential 
     impacts that his nomination will have on climate change, the 
     protection of natural resources, and protection of Tribal 
     trust and treaty rights.
       American Indians and Alaska Natives are disproportionately 
     impacted by climate change due to our geographical areas and 
     direct connection and reliance on the surrounding 
     environments. It is threatening to destroy our lands, waters, 
     and natural resources, which will impact our traditional and 
     customary ways of life that has been sustainable for 
     thousands of years. The well-documented plight of Alaska 
     Native villages is probably the most profound manifestation 
     of the climate crisis and requires focused, high priority 
     attention from the federal government. NCAI's Tribal 
     leadership and members have spoken strongly on climate change 
     by passing four resolutions in the past four years calling 
     for action and setting Tribal Climate Change Principles 
     calling on further federal action and partnership with Tribal 
     governments.
       The federal government's treaty and trust responsibilities 
     to protect Indian lands includes the duty to protect lands 
     from the impacts of climate change, which requires not only 
     that sufficient federal resources be equitably allocated to 
     address climate change, but that Tribes be included as 
     partners to solve these issues. Federal programs and policies 
     must allow Tribal Nations to engage effectively in adaptation 
     and mitigation strategies that will help ensure the integrity 
     of our cultures, homelands, infrastructures, and services. 
     Further, it is imperative that federal agencies enforce 
     Tribal treaty and reserved rights to both on- and off-
     reservation resources.
       The EPA's mission to protect human health and the 
     environment means that it plays an essential role in fighting 
     climate change-related impacts. Due to its charge, EPA also 
     has a sacred responsibility to uphold and protect Tribal 
     trust and treaty rights through the protection of Tribal 
     natural resources. In fact, the EPA acknowledges the 
     importance of reviewing how agency actions will impact treaty 
     rights in its recent policy guidance EPA Policy on 
     Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes: Guidance 
     for Discussing Tribal Treaty Rights.
       Since the EPA is critical to combating climate change and 
     protecting Tribal trust and treaty rights, Indian country is 
     deeply concerned with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to 
     head the Agency. It is our understanding that, in his role as 
     Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Pruitt has 
     repeatedly filed suits against the EPA for its regulations 
     seeking to protect the environment. Further, his nomination 
     comes from an incoming Administration which claims that 
     climate change is a ``hoax'' and questions whether the EPA 
     should continue to exist.
       This Committee must ensure that attorney General Pruitt 
     understands and acknowledges the realities of human impacts 
     on global climate change, the need for the EPA and federal 
     regulations to protect the environment, and the importance of 
     EPA's role in protecting Tribal lands, waters, and natural 
     resources. We must get his commitment on the record to 
     sustain the EPA's role in fighting climate change and 
     protecting Tribal trust and treaty rights. Without these 
     acknowledgements, Indian Country cannot support Attorney 
     General Pruitt's nomination for Administrator of the EPA.
       We are at a critical moment in combating the increasing 
     climate changes effects from human-made sources. Indian 
     Country, the United States, and the world cannot afford to 
     take a backseat role in fighting climate change.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Brian Cladoosby,
                                                        President.

  Mr. UDALL. Madam President, I would like to just read a couple of 
paragraphs from the letter.

       On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians 
     (NCAI), the oldest, largest, and most representative American 
     Indian and Alaskan Native organization serving the broad 
     interests of tribal governments and communities, I am writing 
     to express our deep concern of the nomination of Oklahoma 
     attorney general Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency based on his history of 
     fighting environmental regulations and the new 
     Administration's statements denying the existence of climate 
     change. The continuing impacts of climate change are a major 
     concern of Tribal Nations and, before this Committee votes to 
     move forward with Attorney General Pruitt's nomination to 
     lead the EPA, it must thoroughly consider the potential 
     impacts that his nomination will have on climate change, the 
     protection of natural resources, and protection of Tribal 
     trust and treaty rights.
       American Indians and Alaskan Natives are disproportionately 
     impacted by climate change due to our geographic areas and 
     direct connection and reliance on the surrounding 
     environments. It is threatening to destroy our lands, waters, 
     and natural resources, which will impact our traditional and 
     customary ways of life that have been sustainable for 
     thousands of years.
       We are at a critical moment in combating the increasing 
     climate change effects from human-made sources. Indian 
     Country, the United States, and the world cannot afford to 
     take a backseat role in fighting climate change.

  In conclusion, my concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on environmental 
policy aren't just because we disagree on policy. Mr. Pruitt has made 
his reputation in litigating fiercely against the EPA's most important 
regulations to protect public health and the environment, clean air, 
clean water, toxics on land--you name it--regulations that comply with 
Federal environmental laws that are based on good science, that have 
taken years to prepare, and that have taken fair account of all 
stakeholders' input.
  I cannot support a nominee to lead this Agency whose record is so 
hostile to the environment. For all of these reasons, I must vote no on 
Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be EPA Administrator.
  Finally, we have today the court's ordering Mr. Pruitt to release a 
large number of records that are relevant to this particular 
nomination. He has refused to release them. The administration, in 
vetting him, did a very poor job. As you know, they do not vet anybody. 
They throw it up here, and we have to do the vetting. That is our job 
to do the vetting. This is a critical part of the record--a vast number 
of emails that should be looked at.
  Many of us believe we should have the time to look at these emails, 
to deliberate about them, to maybe even ask some written questions to 
Mr. Pruitt about them, but this nomination is being rammed through. In 
a couple of hours, we are going to have a vote. Luckily, Senator 
Merkley is going to urge that we vote to delay this so we can have a 
chance to look at those emails. It is so that all of us--all of the 100 
Senators--have the opportunity to have a full, complete record on Mr. 
Pruitt.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HATCH. 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. HATCH. Madam President, I rise to speak in support of the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  Attorney General Pruitt has a distinguished record of public service 
in having served for 8 years in the Oklahoma State Senate before being 
sworn in as the attorney general of Oklahoma in 2010. Two dozen State 
attorneys general wrote to the Senate Committee on Environment and 
Public Works in support of Mr. Pruitt's nomination. He has been 
endorsed by a wide variety of organizations representing a broad swath 
of America culture and industry, including the U.S. Chamber of 
Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, the American Farm 
Bureau Federation, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the 
Western Energy Alliance, and the Western Growers Association, just to 
name a few.
  In his capacity as State attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has 
consistently fought against Federal intrusion on State and individual 
liberties, and he has shown himself to be a thoughtful attorney who is 
dedicated to the Constitution and to the rule of law. The

[[Page S1381]]

next Administrator of the EPA must respect the limits of Federal power. 
Few know these limits better than Mr. Pruitt, which is why I believe he 
will be a capable leader at the EPA.
  Mr. Pruitt will rein in Federal overreach and put a stop to many of 
the overbearing regulations that have done very little to protect the 
environment but much to hurt businesses, large and small.
  Modernization of the Environmental Protection Agency is long overdue. 
For too long, the Agency has acted outside its legal authority. For too 
long, the Agency has strayed from its core mission of protecting human 
health and the environment. For too long, it has imposed draconian 
regulations that cause undue harm to America's small businesses and 
rural communities.
  I have long held that the EPA can fulfill its vitally important 
mission of protecting the environment without causing unnecessary harm 
to the economy, but to achieve this objective will require a massive 
culture change at the Agency--a culture change that only Mr. Pruitt can 
bring.
  Mr. Pruitt wants an EPA that is both pro-environment and pro-growth. 
What is wrong with that? That is long overdue. He understands that 
protecting our lands and helping our businesses succeed is not a zero-
sum game. With Mr. Pruitt at the helm, I am confident he will bring 
much needed change to the EPA and restore the public's trust in the 
Agency.
  Once confirmed, I am eager to work with Mr. Pruitt to discuss how we 
can best protect our air and our water and how we can best modernize 
the EPA.
  It is amazing to me that some of the greatest leaders in the 
bureaucracy over the years have been people who have worked in the 
fields that really constitute what we are talking about here today. 
They have surprised people by making sure that both sides have really 
been taken care of and that the laws are faithfully executed and some 
of the partisanship and biased approaches toward the environment are 
overcome.
  Mr. Pruitt is capable of doing that--a brilliant man with a brilliant 
record. He is supported by an awful lot of attorneys general in this 
country. He is a person who, if liberally given the chance, might be 
able to help turn around some of the things that are just plain wrong 
at the EPA.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.