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

[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.