[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1382-S1386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                     Executive Branch Investigation

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I rise today on two topics--the need 
for Attorney General Sessions to recuse himself from the executive 
branch investigation into General Flynn and the nomination of Attorney 
General Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator.
  First, on the matter of executive branch investigations into General 
Flynn's contact with the Russian Ambassador, I rise again to stress my 
expectation that Attorney General Sessions will recuse himself from 
this investigation.
  This morning we learned--according to reports in the Washington 
Post--that General Flynn may have lied--lied--to FBI investigators 
about the content of his phone call with the Russian Ambassador prior 
to the election. That is a potential felony offense, and it must be 
looked at and, if validated, potentially prosecuted by law enforcement 
officials at the Department of Justice. That review must be independent 
and thorough and completely by the books. In order for it to be so, the 
Attorney General must recuse himself pursuant to Department of Justice 
guidelines that prohibit members of the Department from participating 
in investigations of close political allies or friends.
  The guidelines are crystal clear. I have read them on the floor 
before, but they are worth reading because there is no wiggle room 
here. It is absolutely clear:

       No Department of Justice employee may participate in a 
     criminal investigation or prosecution if he has a personal or 
     political relationship with any person or organization 
     substantially involved in the conduct that is the subject of 
     the investigation or prosecution. . . . Political 
     relationship means a close identification with an elected 
     official, candidate, political party, or campaign 
     organization arising from service as a principal adviser or 
     official.

  Those are the words of the DOJ guidelines. Those are not my words, 
but they are common sense. We don't want conflict of interest in our 
prosecutors. We don't want the appearance of a conflict in something as 
sacred as law enforcement here in America.
  It is patently absurd to think that the Attorney General--a man who 
served alongside General Flynn on Candidate Trump's campaign council--
is prepared to lead this investigation in an impartial way and in full 
compliance with those longstanding Department of Justice rules. There 
would be a complete appearance of a conflict and might, indeed, be a 
conflict itself. By the guidelines, it certainly is. There is no wiggle 
room here. AGs have recused themselves at least eight times over the 
past two decades to avoid the appearance of bias--twice under President 
Obama, five times under President Bush, and once under President 
Clinton.
  To conclude my remarks on this topic, I want to show--and I ask 
unanimous consent that an op-ed coauthored by then-Senator Sessions 
calling on Attorney General Loretta Lynch to recuse herself in the 
matter of Secretary Clinton's emails be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                   [From FoxNews.com, Nov. 05, 2016]

Giuliani, Sessions, Keating, et al.: Time for Loretta Lynch to Appoint 
                           a Special Counsel

(Editor's note: The authors of the following column are all supporting 
                      Donald Trump for president)

       We are concerned about the egregious damage that has been 
     inflicted on two revered government agencies: the Department 
     of Justice and Department of State. The primary missions of 
     both have been derailed for political purposes.
       The Department of Justice has been thwarted by its top 
     officials' refusal to conduct a proper investigation of 
     former Secretary Clinton's unsecured email server and the Pay 
     for Play accusations based on millions of dollars paid to 
     President Clinton personally and the Clinton Foundation by 
     entities having issues before the State Department, all while 
     she was Secretary.
       Attorney General Lynch and former President Clinton met on 
     the Phoenix, Arizona tarmac days before Secretary Clinton was 
     to be interviewed by the FBI for possible criminal activity. 
     It has been reported that her staff ordered witnesses not to 
     take pictures and no one was present during their 39-minute 
     conversation. General Lynch never recused herself from 
     decisions on the Clinton

[[Page S1383]]

     investigation after her self-admitted ``mistake,'' as it has 
     also been reported that she continues to deny the FBI the 
     authority to convene a Grand Jury, which is necessary for any 
     meaningful investigation.


 Secretary Clinton's conduct at the Department of State corrupted our 
                             foreign policy

       It has also been reported that General Lynch opposed 
     Director Comey from fulfilling his obligation to Congress by 
     informing members of the discovery of 650,000 emails on 
     Anthony Weiner's and Huma Abedin's computer, the existence of 
     which had been concealed from government authorities.
       Recusal is a formal process. It is a written document 
     specifically describing the scope of the recusal and 
     designating the official in charge of the recused matter. If 
     General Lynch went through the proper procedure for recusal, 
     she has not publicly shared it.
       Secretary Clinton's conduct at the Department of State 
     corrupted our foreign policy. She and President Clinton 
     turned the agency into a Pay for Play adjunct of the Clinton 
     Foundation and their personal bank account, the latter via 
     his personal ``speaking'' fees. [UBS, Switzerland's largest 
     bank, contributed over $600,000 to the Foundation and loaned 
     it over $30,000,000. UBS was grateful that Secretary Clinton 
     had intervened in the IRS' demand to UBS to provide 
     identities of 52,000 depositors. Secretary Clinton announced 
     the settlement of only 4,450 identities in an ``unusual 
     intervention by a top U.S. diplomat,'' according to the Wall 
     Street Journal. UBS additionally paid President Clinton 
     personally $1,500,000 for a series of questions and answers 
     with top management.
       President Clinton reaped $6,200,000 personally from foreign 
     governments and businesses for speeches while she was 
     Secretary of State. For example, Ericsson, a Swedish 
     corporation, had sanction issues pending before the State 
     Department regarding telecom sales in certain countries. 
     Ericsson paid President Clinton $750,000 for one speech. Days 
     later the State Department announced the sanction list and 
     Ericsson was not affected. Why should any spouse of a 
     Secretary of State be permitted ever to receive one cent from 
     a foreign entity?
       Because of our grave concern for integrity in government we 
     ask for a Special Counsel. When a high public official is 
     accused of serious wrongdoing and there is a sufficient 
     factual predicate to investigate, it is imperative the 
     investigation be thorough, with dispatch and without 
     partisanship.
       Secretary Clinton is the subject of two spheres of criminal 
     conduct: her deliberate, systematic mishandling of official 
     and classified emails and her abuse of a family-controlled, 
     tax-exempt Foundation, and corporate and foreign donations 
     for her own economic and political benefit.
       These allegations arose well before this election year.
       Clinton's mishandling of emails became public in March 
     2015, and allegations over abuse of the Foundation arose well 
     before that. There has long been sufficient factual predicate 
     to require these matters be fully investigated.
       The appropriate response when the subject matter is public 
     and it arises in a highly-charged political atmosphere is for 
     the Attorney General to appoint a Special Counsel of great 
     public stature and indisputable independence to assure the 
     public the matter will be handled without partisanship.
       In 1991-1992, a Special Counsel was appointed for three 
     separate matters: House Bank, Iraqgate, and Inslaw. It was 
     also done in 2003 in the Valerie Plame matter.
       Instead of moving with dispatch to ensure a vigorous 
     investigation of Secretary Clinton, it appears that the 
     Justice Department, along with State, have enabled the 
     Clinton campaign to ``slow roll'' the inquiry.
       General Lynch continues to exert control of a matter that 
     she should have assigned to another official.
       We are distressed by widespread and credible reports that 
     FBI agents have been hindered by the Justice Department's 
     withholding of basic investigative tools, such as grand jury 
     subpoenas, which are fundamental in a complex investigation.
       It is time to do what should have been done long ago--
     appoint a Special Counsel.
       Rudolph W. Giuliani--Former Associate Attorney General and 
     U.S. Attorney in Southern District of New York
       Senator Jeff Sessions--former U.S. Attorney for Alabama's 
     Southern District
       Frank Keating--Former Associate Attorney General, U.S. in 
     District of Kansas and Special Agent FBI
       Victoria Toensing--former Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
     in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Justice Department
       Henry McMaster--former U.S. Attorney, District of South 
     Carolina
       Rudy Giuliani is the former Mayor of the City of New York.

  Mr. SCHUMER. Senator Sessions, right here, called for Loretta Lynch--
then Attorney General--to recuse herself because of a conflict of 
interest under the very same guidelines we cited. We hope and we pray 
that Senator Sessions doesn't have an enormous double standard by 
refusing to recuse himself now when he asked the previous Attorney 
General to do so. We hope that President Trump will abide by the 
guidelines and encourage Senator Sessions to go by the guidelines and 
not again invoke any double standard.
  This op-ed makes it crystal clear. What was good enough for Loretta 
Lynch, who did step aside, is good enough for Attorney General 
Sessions, and it would be outrageous--outrageous--for him to be in 
charge of this investigation.
  The op-ed says: ``When a high public official is accused of serious 
wrongdoing and there is a sufficient factual predicate to investigate, 
it is imperative the investigation be thorough, without dispatch and 
without partisanship.''
  So I hope Attorney General Sessions takes the word of Senator Jeff 
Sessions to heart. Every day that goes by without a recusal from the 
Attorney General, the cloud hanging over this investigation and over 
this administration gets darker and darker. And every time the 
President and Attorney General Sessions confer, again, the cloud hovers 
over them: What did they talk about? Was it this investigation?
  So I hope Attorney General Sessions will do the right thing and 
recuse himself. Justice, the American way, and separation of powers 
require no less.
  Madam President, today we will vote on another Cabinet nominee who is 
clouded by potential conflicts of interest and whose views are almost 
antithetical to the very purpose of the Agency to which he is 
nominated.
  Mr. Pruitt is a climate science denier--some say skeptic, but this is 
not an issue where you can be skeptical; either you accept the 
overwhelming opinion of climate scientists and researchers or you 
don't.
  Here is Scott Pruitt on climate change on Oklahoma talk radio:

       Well, reasonable minds can disagree what is actually 
     happening, whether it is happening, number one, whether there 
     is change in climate that is occurring, that the trajectory 
     of it is something that is sustainable and whether that is 
     actually happening . . . the debate about climate change is 
     just that, a debate.

  I would invite this nominee to walk through Long Beach or Long Island 
or Staten Island in New York City in the days and weeks after 
Superstorm Sandy rocked my State. None of those residents--the 
thousands who lost homes, the hundreds of thousands who suffered 
injury, damage, economic problems from the flood--they don't debate it, 
nor should he. There was no debate there. Folks lost everything that 
belonged to them. There was no debate about that. Forty-eight people in 
my State died--no debate about that.
  Climate change will lead to more devastating natural disasters like 
Sandy, which was the third 100-year storm to strike my State in a 
decade. Climate change will make asthma and respiratory diseases worse. 
It is increasing the range of deer ticks that cause lyme disease--no 
debate about that. We have to do something about climate change.
  Scott Pruitt as head of our Nation's Environmental Protection Agency 
likely wouldn't lift a finger. But it is part of a lifelong pattern. 
Instead of fighting for average Americans, Mr. Pruitt decided to make a 
name for himself among the far right by endlessly suing the EPA in ways 
that would benefit large special interests that also happen to be 
campaign contributors. In 13 of his 14 lawsuits against the EPA, he 
joined corporations and trade associations that had contributed to his 
campaign.
  Just yesterday, an Oklahoma judge ruled that Scott Pruitt must turn 
over approximately 3,000 emails relating to his communications with the 
fossil fuel industry--the very industry he represented in these 
lawsuits. We won't get those emails until Tuesday. So you would expect 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be up in arms. Emails. 
Remember, emails? We should get them out, they said, about Hillary 
Clinton--the same group. In 2013, Gina McCarthy waited 122 days to be 
confirmed for EPA Administrator because she wasn't honoring a 
commitment, they felt, to transparency.
  There were several inquiries into the emails of Lisa Jackson, another 
EPA Administrator. But the majority and majority leader are proceeding 
right along and rushing Attorney General Pruitt through the process. We 
know why. They want you, my fellow Republicans, to vote for Mr. Pruitt 
before

[[Page S1384]]

those emails come to light. If they weren't worried about them, then 
why rush? It is not the worst thing in the world to take a few extra 
days to properly vet someone who will have immense power over our 
Nation's streams, skies, even the lead level in our homes and water 
supply.
  Those emails could contain material information about his 
confirmation. But unless we move the confirmation back, the Senate will 
not get a chance to review those emails before voting on his 
nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's postcloture time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I urge my Republican colleagues to stop rushing this 
nomination and ensure that we collect all relevant information on these 
troubling conflicts of interest.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I yield back the remainder of 
my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, since I did not object to the additional 
30 seconds, I ask unanimous consent that my 5 minutes be changed to 5 
minutes and 30 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, a quick comment about climate change: No 
one--no one--has denied that the climate is consistently changing. All 
the Scriptural evidence, historical evidence, and archeological 
evidence says, yes, it has always been changing and always will change. 
But what they are trying to infer is that because of that, then the 
world is coming to an end because of what? Manmade gases--anthropogenic 
gases--manmade gases. That is what the real hoax is, but I am not going 
to waste my time on that. However, I will next week, I might add.
  The Senator from New York talked about the fact that we have an 
attorney general who has sued the EPA many times. Let me just remind 
everyone--and I don't think I have heard this on the floor, but I have 
watched Democrat after Democrat after Democrat come by and just 
brutally attack Scott Pruitt, a guy I know to be an honorable man. I 
don't know of one attorney general who has served with him who doesn't 
agree with that.
  In terms of suing, I think it is important to understand that almost 
every Democrat who has stood up and said disparaging things about Scott 
Pruitt and talked about the fact that he has sued the EPA countless 
times--their attorney general from their State has also sued the EPA. I 
will read the States: The attorneys general from Wisconsin, Colorado, 
Ohio, Nevada, Indiana, New Mexico, Missouri, Florida, Michigan, and 
Montana, all have Democratic Members of the Senate who have been 
criticizing Scott Pruitt. Their own States have filed lawsuits against 
the EPA.
  The other thing I want to mention, which I think is very important, 
is a letter from our newest Senator, Luther Strange. Senator Strange is 
the replacement for our Honorable Jeff Sessions, who now is the 
Attorney General. This letter is signed by two pages of attorneys 
general from all over America--Democratic States, Republican States, 
States where Democrats have come to this floor criticizing him. I will 
read the last two paragraphs of the letter from Luther Strange signed 
by all of these Democratic and Republican Attorneys General:

       Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney 
     general, he is also our friend. A man of deep faith who is 
     committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks 
     always to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership 
     have been invaluable to us over the years.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     plays a critical role in our Nation's government.

  Keep in mind, this is coming from Democratic attorneys general.

       Attorney General Pruitt has proven over the course of his 
     career that he has the right character, experience, and 
     knowledge to serve as the Administrator of the EPA. We urge 
     the Senate to confirm his nomination.

  This is signed by about 22 attorneys general, Democrats and 
Republicans.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter, along with the 
list of States who have had occasion to sue the EPA, the same as Scott 
Pruitt has, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                 State of Alabama,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                  Montgomery, AL, January 4, 2017.
     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: As the 
     attorneys general of our respective states, we write to 
     express our unqualified support for our colleague and the 
     Attorney General of Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, as 
     Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
       As attorneys general, we understand the need to work 
     collaboratively to address threats to our environment that 
     cross state lines, as well as the importance of a federal 
     counterpart in the EPA Administrator who possesses the 
     knowledge, experience, and principles to work with our states 
     to address issues affecting our environment. We believe that 
     no one exemplifies these qualities more than Scott Pruitt.
       As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt developed 
     expertise in environmental law and policy. He negotiated a 
     historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes that 
     preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers; he 
     worked with his Democrat counterpart in Arkansas to reduce 
     pollution in the Illinois River; and he represented the 
     interests of Oklahomans in rate cases against utility 
     companies and in numerous actions against those who 
     contaminated his state's air and water.
       Attorney General Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean 
     water, and to faithfully executing the environmental laws 
     written by Congress. He believes that environmental 
     regulations should be driven by State and local governments--
     a notion endorsed by Congress in the Clean Air Act and Clean 
     Water Act. When our nation is confronted with issues 
     affecting the environment that are not covered by a 
     particular statute, Scott will come to Congress for a 
     solution, rather than inventing power for his agency. He 
     wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection 
     Agency that carries out its proper duties, providing a 
     backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 
     environmental regulations suited to the needs of their own 
     communities.
       Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney 
     general, he is also our friend. A man of deep faith who is 
     committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks 
     always to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership 
     have been invaluable to us over the years.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     plays a critical role in our Nation's government. Attorney 
     General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career that 
     he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to 
     serve as the Administrator of the EPA. We urge the Senate to 
     confirm his nomination.
           Sincerely,
       Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; Alan 
     Wilson, Attorney General, State of South Carolina; Luther 
     Strange, Attorney General, State of Alabama;Marty Jackley, 
     Attorney General, State of South Dakota; Patrick Morrisey, 
     Attorney General, State of West Virginia; Adam Laxalt, 
     Attorney General, State of Nevada; Mark Brnovich, Attorney 
     General, State of Arizona; Herbert Slatery, Attorney General, 
     State of Tennessee; Curtis Hill, Attorney General, State of 
     Indiana; Brad Schimel, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin; 
     Ken Paxton, Attorney General, State of Texas; Bill Schuette, 
     Attorney General, State of Michigan.
       Doug Peterson, Attorney General, State of Nebraska; Chris 
     Carr, Attorney General, State of Georgia; Sean Reyes, 
     Attorney General, State of Utah; Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney 
     General, State of North Dakota; Leslie Rutledge, Attorney 
     General, State of Arkansas; Pam Bondi, Attorney General, 
     State of Florida; Lawrence Wasden, Attorney General, State of 
     Idaho; Tim Fox, Attorney General, State of Montana; Derek 
     Schmidt, Attorney General, State of Kansas; Josh Hawley, 
     Attorney General, State of Missouri; Peter Michael, Attorney 
     General, State of Wyoming; Mike DeWine, Attorney General, 
     State of Ohio.


two cases in which states with democrat senators voting against pruitt 
                           have sued the epa

       Clean Power Plan: OK is one of 27 states suing
       Wisconsin: Baldwin
       Colorado: Bennett
       Ohio: Brown
       Indiana: Donnelly
       Virginia: Kaine and Warner
       Missouri: McCaskill
       Florida: Nelson
       Michigan: Peters and Stabenow
       Montana: Tester
       Waters of the US: OK is one of 32 states suing
       Wisconsin: Baldwin
       Colorado: Bennett
       Ohio: Brown
       Nevada: Cortez Masto
       Indiana: Donnelly
       New Mexico: Heinrich and Udall
       Missouri: McCaskill
       Florida: Nelson

[[Page S1385]]

       Michigan: Peters and Stabenow
       Montana: Tester

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak for 2 minutes, followed by Senator Heinrich for 10 
minutes and Senator Tester for 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, I thank the floor staff who were here 
through the night last night and also the staff of the Republican 
cloakroom and the Democratic cloakroom. They have enabled us to 
continue this process at great expense to their energy and fatigue. As 
Senators, we all appreciate the team that has made this possible.
  I also want to draw attention to a letter from 773 EPA employees, who 
state:

       We write as former employees of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns about Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications to serve as 
     the next EPA Administrator in light of his record in 
     Oklahoma. . . . Our Perspective is not partisan. Having 
     served under both Republican and Democratic presidents, we 
     recognize each new Administration's right to pursue different 
     policies within the parameters of existing law and to ask 
     Congress to change the laws that protect public health and 
     the environment as it sees fit.
       However, every EPA Administrator has a fundamental 
     obligation to act in the public's interest based on current 
     law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt's record 
     raises serious questions about whose interests he has served 
     to date.

  Madam President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. HEINRICH. Madam President, on August 5, 2015, 3 million gallons 
of acid mine drainage laden with heavy metals and other contaminants 
were released into Cement Creek by an Environmental Protection Agency 
contractor investigating contamination at the Gold King Mine in San 
Juan County, CO.
  Contaminated water flowed down Cement Creek, down the Animas River, 
and into the San Juan River, resulting in water use restrictions and 
emergency responses in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, the Southern Ute 
Reservation, and the Navajo Nation. We need only look at the photos of 
the bright orange water streaming through these various drainages to 
see how terrible this spill was for the affected communities and for 
water users. The Gold King Mine spill placed a heavy burden on States, 
tribes, local governments, and communities, and the spill hurt 
businesses, farmers, and ranchers throughout the region.
  Since the spill, I have visited impacted residents and communities 
and worked closely with local, State, and tribal leaders to make sure 
water is monitored for contaminants, and costs from the spill are 
repaid.
  Last year, I was proud to help pass a measure in Congress which will 
ensure that State and local and tribal governments will be fully 
reimbursed for their emergency response costs and which establishes a 
long-term water quality monitoring program in cooperation with local 
stakeholders.
  However, on January 13 of this year, the EPA and Department of 
Justice issued an outrageous decision that the EPA is not liable under 
the Federal Tort Claims Act for damages to water users caused by this 
Gold King Mine spill. This decision represents a broken promise from 
the EPA that it would fully address this environmental disaster.
  Now, while the agency has taken steps is to clean up the mine, no 
farmer in New Mexico or on the Navajo Nation has received a dime of 
compensation, and distrust of the government has understandably 
deepened across the Four Corners region.
  During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on 
Environment and Public Works last month, President Trump's nominee to 
run the EPA, Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, said that he would 
review the Agency's decision not to make payments to claimants affected 
by this spill.
  If he is confirmed as EPA Administrator, Mr. Pruitt must take 
immediate steps to restore trust among the people of Colorado, New 
Mexico, Utah, the Southern Ute Tribe, and the Navajo Nation, who have 
already waited far too long for the EPA to keep its promise and 
compensate them for the harm that has been caused.
  I will hold Mr. Pruitt accountable for cleaning up toxic, abandoned 
hard-rock mines in the West, such as Gold King, and I will hold him 
accountable for making sure the water that New Mexico communities and 
farmers rely on is safe.
  We shouldn't wait for more disasters to strike. New Mexico 
communities deserve full and complete protection for their land, their 
water, and their livelihoods.
  Unfortunately, I have real reason to doubt Mr. Pruitt will take this 
responsibility and core mission of the EPA seriously in his new role. 
As the attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has built a long track 
record that is antithetical to the EPA's core mission to keep our 
Nation's land, water, and air clean. Mr. Pruitt repeatedly fought 
against the EPA as it implemented measures to safeguard our clean air 
and clean water.
  Rather than protecting the health of Oklahoma families, he has filed 
lawsuits against the EPA to stop rules that would have reduced smog and 
soot crossing State lines, protected against emissions of mercury, 
arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants from power plants, and 
improved air quality in national parks and wilderness areas.
  Mr. Pruitt has shown little regard for the safety of our drinking 
water, filing a lawsuit to stop the EPA's clean water rule, which would 
protect the natural filtering system that supplies drinking water to 
one out of every three Americans.
  Mr. Pruitt sent a letter to the EPA opposing even preliminary 
research into the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on our water 
resources. Mr. Pruitt has been a friend to polluters, helping them to 
use his office as a conduit for their special interests. He has sent 
letters on official letterhead to the EPA, the Department of the 
Interior, the Office of Management and Budget, and even to the 
President of the United States, copied and pasted nearly verbatim from 
language written by industry lobbyists.
  Perhaps most damning of all, Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly denied the 
scientific consensus on the human influence on climate change, 
including in an op-ed recently published in May of last year. It takes 
a willful disregard for data-driven science to ignore the increase in 
extreme weather events that we are now seeing on a regular basis, 
thanks to climate change.
  Just last Saturday in Mangum, OK, an all-time record of 99 degrees 
Fahrenheit was set on February 11. Imagine that; 99 degrees in the 
heart of winter. Folks, I wish I were making this up, but no snowball 
on the floor of the Senate can erase these facts.
  It was Mr. Pruitt, the Attorney General of Oklahoma, who sued the EPA 
to prevent measures to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the very cause 
of climate change. Americans need a leader at the EPA who will take 
action on climate change, and we need someone who is guided in their 
decisions by the best available science.
  I have heard from thousands of New Mexicans who have made a strong 
case that Mr. Pruitt is not the right person for this job. I will not 
vote to confirm Scott Pruitt. But I will say that if my colleagues move 
forward with this nomination, they can be sure that we will hold Mr. 
Pruitt accountable for decisions that hurt the health of New Mexico 
families. That includes making sure Mr. Pruitt rights the wrongs 
inflicted on communities in the Four Corners region by the Gold King 
Mine spill. It is going to take many years to clean up the legacy of 
100 years of hard rock mining and the impacts on our watersheds in 
northwestern New Mexico and on the Navajo Nation.

  In New Mexico, we have a saying: ``Water is life.'' The water we 
drink and the air we breathe are not negotiable.
  My constituents in New Mexico cannot afford to see the EPA stop 
working to protect us from air pollution, to conserve our water 
resources, and to work to reverse the damaging effects of climate 
change.
  Madam President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. DAINES. Madam President, I can tell you it is bittersweet to be 
here

[[Page S1386]]

today. As we sometimes say back home: I've got some good news; I've got 
some bad news. On the good news side, we are here today to confirm 
Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the next Administrator of the EPA. 
While he should have been passed through the Senate weeks ago, we are 
here now. We are here today. We are going to get it done in a couple of 
hours. That is good news.
  As they say about Montana, we are a unique blend of Merle Haggard and 
John Denver, and mastering that melody is always a challenge. When you 
do, it results in a commonsense approach to environmental stewardship, 
and I can tell you Scott Pruitt is the guy to do it.
  I literally left my office to come here and make these remarks, and 
guess who I was meeting with in my office. It was Scott Pruitt.
  You know what we talked about?
  He came into my office. When you come into my office, you can see 
Montana all over the walls. You are going to see me with a fly rod in 
my hand. You are going to see pictures of trout that we have caught and 
released back into the streams and rivers of our State. We talked about 
fly fishing in Yellowstone Park. He loves to fly-fish.
  In fact, he asked to me: Do you know where Cooke City, MT, is?
  I said: Scott, Cooke City, MT? Let me show you. I have a map of the 
Beartooth in my office with pins in all the lakes that I have blown to. 
In fact, I spent 65 miles in the Beartooth Wilderness in August on 
horseback and on foot, above 10,000 feet, with an elk hair caddis and 
my fly rod, chasing golden trout and cutthroat trout. We spent a lot of 
time talking about that. We talked about elk hunting and deer hunting 
in Montana.
  Scott Pruitt understands the important role that States play, 
especially in a State like Montana. I am confident he is going to 
restore this balanced focus, this Merle Haggard and John Denver balance 
that Montanans are pleading for. He will bring that back to the EPA, 
rather than this heavy-handed Gina McCarthy out-of-touch Federal 
approach.
  Let me tell you a couple of stories of what is going on in Montana 
and why Scott Pruitt is exactly the right guy for the job. Today in the 
small town of Colstrip, MT, they face a real struggle to survive. 
Colstrip is a generating station and neighboring mine and the lifeblood 
of this small town.
  Over the years, the Colstrip plant has continued to develop. They 
have adopted new technologies, and they made remarkable reductions in 
emissions and pollution. Yet it has been met with an onslaught of new 
environmental regulations that are having drastic compliance costs on 
our State.
  Let me share some of those. Under this EPA power plan that was 
launched by Gina McCarthy, Montana needs to cut its emissions by 47 
percent--the largest reduction in the Nation, leading almost inevitably 
to the entire shutdown of Colstrip.
  In fact, according to a study conducted by the University of Montana, 
they said this plan will cost our State 7,000 jobs, $500 million in 
lost revenues, and $1.5 billion in gross sales for our State. And 
Montana moves from being an energy exporter to being an energy 
importer. That is outrageous, and the people of Montana know it.
  For what? For what the Obama administration had projected to have a 
0.02-degree impact on global temperature in the next 100 years--
negligible. In fact, I confronted Gina McCarthy on that in a hearing, 
and she did not refute my data.
  Similarly, the waters of the United States serves yet another example 
of the detrimental effects of Gina McCarthy's and President Obama's 
EPA, which has harmed Montana's farmers and ranchers. As I mentioned, 
one of my favorite things to do is get into the fresh air of Montana, 
the clean waters of Montana, up in wilderness country with my fly rod 
in my hand. We all want clean water. We all want clean air. I have yet 
to meet a single Montanan who says I don't want clean air; I don't want 
clean water.
  The WOTUS rule was a clear effort by the Obama administration to gain 
control over Montana's livelihoods. It was a private property taking, 
seeking to regulate virtually every ditch and pond that could be 
occasionally wet across the State of Montana.
  While, thankfully, this incredible overreach by the EPA and the Obama 
administration has been stopped by the courts, I am looking forward to 
working with Scott Pruitt to defend Montana farmers and ranchers and to 
defend Montana property owners from this unnecessary and harmful rule.
  Scott Pruitt understands the important role our States play and not 
to levy unnecessary and overreaching Federal regulations--regulations 
that could decimate a State's economy. That is unacceptable.
  I will tell what you else I talked to Scott Pruitt about; that is, 
the importance of cleaning up our Superfund sites. This is a critical 
responsibility of the EPA. We need to unleash American innovation, 
American cooperation--not cut off affordable energy sources at its 
heels.

  Regarding Superfund cleanup, as Scott and I concluded our meeting, we 
talked about the Berkeley Pit in Butte. He has committed to getting 
that environmental disaster cleaned up. He assured me he will address 
these issues head-on.
  The largest Superfund site in the United States is right there in 
Butte, MT. We had snow geese that came across our State migrating. They 
landed in the toxic waters in the Berkeley Pit, and thousands of snow 
geese died just by landing in the water. Scott is committed to getting 
that fixed. It has been on the list for over 20 years. It is time to 
fix it, and Scott is committed, saying: Let's get this done.
  That is why he is going to be a great Administrator, to protect the 
environment in Montana.
  That is the good news. We are going to move Scott Pruitt through 
today, and I am looking forward to casting a ``yes'' vote for our next 
Administrator of the EPA.