[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1386-S1390]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Ryan Zinke
Let me share the bad news. Just this morning, Leader McConnell came
here to move Congressman Zinke's nomination to be the next Secretary of
Interior and debate that on the floor. Let's have unanimous consent;
let's get that done.
Guess what. The Democrats objected. Why?
Ryan Zinke and I went to Boise State in 1979. He will be the first
Cabinet appointee in the history of the State of Montana going back to
statehood of 1889, and the Democrats are blocking us from getting that
done today for no good reason.
He passed with a bipartisan vote of 16 to 6 in the Energy and Natural
Resources Committee. He is going to be an outstanding addition to
President Trump's Cabinet. I don't understand why it is being blocked.
We can get that done this afternoon--done. Let's get it done now.
Instead, Ryan Zinke is being stopped from assuming his position as
Secretary of the Interior. Guess what. We have a long list of things to
do in Interior.
I am the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee. We have a
backlog of maintenance. We have to get Zinke in place now to start
strengthening our national parks. He is going to be a great addition.
I am pleading with my colleagues. I am asking why. Give me a good
reason why you are objecting to moving Congressman Zinke's nomination
forward now? Why are you holding up this historic vote for Montana?
This will be the longest a President has waited for his team to be in
place since George Washington. It is ridiculous. We need a Secretary of
the Interior who will be a westerner, one who understands that Montana
is that balance between Merle Haggard and John Denver; a Secretary who
understands that, in Montana, our largest neighbor is the Federal
Government; and a Secretary who understands how important our national
parks are for us and for the 6 million folks who visit them every year.
Ryan Zinke is a great guy for that job, but we can't even have a vote.
So we wait.
We wait on the Democrats' political games to unfold. We wait on
Democrats' political posturing. We wait on the Democrats' next delay
tactic.
Montanans are saying: You know what, we are tired of these reindeer
games. Let's put the President's team in place. Let's at least move
Ryan Zinke through in the next couple of hours.
That should not be a heavy lift, but they are obstructing putting
Congressman Ryan Zinke, who is ready to go--
[[Page S1387]]
a Navy SEAL--to be the next Secretary of the Interior.
Mr. GARDNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. DAINES. I will.
Mr. GARDNER. I thank my colleague from the great State of Montana.
During the debate on the floor just a while ago, we heard more debate
on something that is very near and dear to my heart; that is, the
matter of the Gold King Mine and the EPA's self-admitted responsibility
on spilling 3 million gallons of toxic sludge into the Animas River in
Colorado.
The debate around the floor and my comments this morning have
centered on the EPA's admitted liability and fault in spilling millions
of gallons of sludge into a river, promising they would make the
claims, pay for the injury that occurred, and then denying those claims
and walking away.
Had the private sector been involved, my question to the Senator is
this: If the private sector admitted guilt in spilling 3 million
gallons of toxic waste into a river, would they be held accountable?
Mr. DAINES. I am not sure if that is a direct question or a
rhetorical question. Of course, Cory--the Senator from Colorado--they
would be held accountable, and that is why we need to hold the
Superfund sites. We need to hold sites, like what happened here with
the mine in Colorado--hold the EPA accountable for that.
Mr. GARDNER. If the Senator would yield, what the EPA has stated is
admitting fault, admitting and promising that they would pay for those
who were injured, and then just weeks ago, as the previous
administration was ending, they denied every single one of the private
claimants. The Senator has talked about Scott Pruitt at EPA.
When I spoke with the Administrator-designate of EPA, Scott Pruitt
said they would make the private claimants whole; that they would pay
the Navajo Nation; that they would pay the claims made by outfitters
who were shut down.
Will the Senator help me make sure that the EPA stands up to its
obligations and recognize that Scott Pruitt--at both the EPW
confirmation hearing and to me--has committed that the EPA will do what
they did not do; that is, to make our citizens whole?
Mr. DAINES. We will work together on that.
I yield back my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the nomination
of Scott Pruitt.
I understand when we hit high noon, there will be time for prayer.
You tell me, and we will yield back and get this done.
I want to talk about the nomination of Scott Pruitt and how this
important vote will impact my home State. So many folks call Montana
home today because their parents or grandparents or great-grandparents
pushed west to start a new life in the homestead era. My family is no
different.
I am proud and honored that my wife and I are still able to farm the
land that my grandparents homesteaded over a century ago. I know that
it does not matter if you are growing alfalfa, winter wheat, spring
wheat, safflower, or garbanzo beans. I know it doesn't matter if you
are raising cattle or sheep or hogs. You have to have access to clean
water or you cannot succeed in agriculture.
In Montana, agriculture is the number one industry. Local economies
around our State are driven by that agriculture economy, whether it is
farms or ranches. In a good year, our State's wheat production alone
will clear a trillion dollars.
This production not only helps create jobs and farms and ranches but
it boosts the bottom line for the local grocery store, the hardware
store, and local construction crews keep busy. Agriculture is the
backbone of Montana's economy, but it is not the only industry in
Montana that relies on clean air and clean water.
Montana's outdoor economy is growing rapidly every year. Hunting,
fishing, hiking, and camping generate over $6 billion and sustain over
64,000 jobs in Montana each and every year. More folks are visiting
Glacier and Yellowstone National Parks every summer.
And when they visit, these folks spend millions of dollars in
communities outside the parks. Communities like Gardner, Livingston,
Coram, and Columbia Falls constantly have packed restaurants and bars
and hotels, thanks to our clean water and our clean air. Folks are
flocking to Montana because of those assets.
prayer
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule IV, paragraph 2, the hour of
12 noon having arrived, the Senate having been in continuous session
since yesterday, the Senate will suspend for a prayer from the Senate
Chaplain.
The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, offered the following prayer:
Let us pray.
Almighty God, the fountain of blessings, may we rest and wait
patiently for You. You are the Author and Finisher of our faith, so
empower us to embrace Your precepts and walk in Your path.
Lord, prepare our lawmakers to be instruments for Your glory.
Inspired by Your Spirit, may they humble themselves, praying fervently,
seeking Your face, and turning from evil. Respond to their fervent
pursuit of You by bringing healing to our hearts, Nation, and world.
Deliver our Senators from evil, and guide them around the obstacles
that hinder their progress. Forgive them when they delay the good they
can do now, waiting for a more convenient season.
Lord, remember the many staff members and others who have worked long
hours through the night. Compensate them for their sacrifices and for
their commitment to You and country.
We pray in Your great Name. Amen.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. TESTER. Madam President, folks are coming to Montana from all
over this country because of our clean air and clean water and the
habitat it provides. Not only Montanans, but this entire country
respects clean air and clean water. In fact, in Montana, it is
Montana's Constitution that says we value clean air and clean water.
The reason we place such a high importance on clean air and clean
water is because we see what happens when it is put at risk. On
numerous occasions, Montanans have been victims to corporations who
treated Montana like a Third World country. They reaped the value of
our natural resources, and then they left the American taxpayer to
clean up the mess. Folks like the Anaconda Company, W.R. Grace,
Glencore, just to name a few.
They left a mess. It wasn't the EPA that left that mess. It was these
corporations, and it is the EPA's job to make sure they clean up this
mess, not out of the pocketbook of the American taxpayer. These folks,
these corporations, have put our clean air and clean water at risk. Not
only did they contaminate the land, they contaminated our local
economies. One of the largest Superfund sites in this country is in
Butte, MT. It took 16 years, nearly $150 million to clean up just a
portion--just a small portion of what the Anaconda Company left behind
after mining copper in Southwest Montana.
In Libby, hundreds of people have died, and over 1,000 people are ill
because of asbestosis due to asbestos exposure. Even though a local
vermiculite mine closed in 1990, folks are still getting sick due to
asbestos-related diseases.
And for years, I have been fighting alongside the folks at Columbia
Falls, MT, to hold Glencore accountable to that community for the
cyanide and arsenic they left abandoned on the banks of the Flathead
River near the gateway of Glacier National Park.
Companies that put our clean water at risk cannot be trusted because
they never stick around to clean up the mess they have made. We have
seen it firsthand. And that is why we need an EPA Administrator who is
going to side with the American taxpayer, with local economies, with
local families, and hold the polluters and contaminators accountable
for their shortsighted actions.
It is for these reasons that I cannot support Scott Pruitt's
nomination for Administrator of the EPA. Throughout his career, he has
consistently sided with the big polluters over the local businesses and
the local families.
I am not convinced that Mr. Pruitt understands the critical role that
clean air and clean water plays in agriculture and our outdoor
economies. In my conversations with Mr. Pruitt, I received no
assurances that he will be a
[[Page S1388]]
champion for Montana's family farmers, ranchers, those who love to
hunt, fish, and hike in Big Sky Country. Mr. Pruitt has endorsed
policies that will put Montana jobs at risk and put our outdoor
heritage on the ropes.
Don't just take my word for it. Thousands of Montanans have contacted
my office regarding Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Caitlin from Libby wrote
me:
No community understands the grave impact lack of
regulation or failure to enforce environmental regulations
can have on a community like Libby does. Four hundred people
died in Libby because W.R. Grace mined vermiculite that was
contaminated with asbestos. . . . These people died . . .
when they were just doing their job. Libby doesn't want or
need another person that looks the other way while big
corporations prey on hard-working people.
Stephen from Corvallis wrote:
I am a farmer in Montana, and I regularly use pesticides,
where I hope the EPA has my back to make sure these things
are safe for me and the environment. . . . Farming continues
to be less predictable, due to a change in climate. I want
someone in that position that has my back as a farmer, not
someone that questions broad scientific consensus.
Rich is a retired public lands manager from Stevensville who wrote me
saying this about Pruitt:
Is not fit to be leading an agency responsible for
protecting wildlife, clean water, clean air, and leading the
charge of addressing a changing climate. Pruitt is anti-
science, routinely disregarding well-established studies
involving climate change. I recently retired . . . the
thought of the possible damage and undoing of what I've lived
and worked for over my [entire] life by this man is
disheartening to say the least.
Look, folks, the Earth's climate is changing. There is no ifs, ands,
or buts about that. If we want to be able to continue to take our fly
rod and go fishing down those rivers, you have to have somebody in the
EPA who will ensure that we have clean water and clean air. I will tell
you something that happened in Montana for the first time this year.
The Yellowstone River closed. The bottom reason for it was the water
warmed that much. If you are going to have good habitat for fisheries,
if you are going to have good habitat for elk and big game hunting, if
you are going to be able to go up in the mountains and hike, fish,
bike, and do the things we do in Montana, you have to have somebody in
the EPA that makes a difference.
What we do today will not be felt today. It will be felt tomorrow.
That is why today we need a man in the position of EPA who will fight
for clean water and clean air. It is critical to our survival, no ifs,
ands, or buts about it.
Stephen, Caitlyn and Rich are right. We need folks in the
administration who will stand up and understand the value of clean air
and clean water. Unfortunately, the President has nominated someone who
can't deliver. Therefore, I will oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination and
urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Peters be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Carper
for 10 minutes, followed by Senator Barrasso for 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Michigan.
Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, I stand today to express my opposition to
the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Pruitt's track record does not
demonstrate a commitment to addressing critical natural resource
issues.
As Oklahoma's attorney general, he joined forces with polluters to
sue the Environmental Protection Agency again and again, to undermine
the safeguards for clean air and for clean water.
I am also dismayed he has not yet committed to recusing himself on
those pending lawsuits, if confirmed. Not once, not one single time has
he pressed the EPA for more action to protect public health or the
environment. He has defined his career by undermining laws that prevent
people from getting sick and safeguard the environment from
degradation.
In addition, Mr. Pruitt refuses to release thousands of emails
related to his ties to special interests, including corporations that
may have donated to his political campaigns. These connections to very
big energy interests are relevant, given Mr. Pruitt's history of
copying and pasting industry requests directly onto his attorney
general office's letterhead.
It is very difficult to fully evaluate his record without these
emails made public. Just yesterday, an Oklahoma State district judge
ruled that Mr. Pruitt's office will have until Tuesday to turn over
these emails.
Unfortunately, the Senate will vote on his nomination in just a
moment, before these documents are released, and give the American
people an opportunity to see what they contain.
I would strongly urge that the nomination vote be postponed until
these emails are released, and they can be fully considered. The EPA
Administrator must be someone who is committed to improving and
enforcing laws and regulations that safeguard clean air and clean water
for all Americans.
Mr. Pruitt's record of undermining critical health and environmental
protections demonstrate that he is simply not the right person to lead
the EPA. I urge my colleagues to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, a few minutes ago, we stopped everything
right here. Stopped. And the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate came in, Barry
Black, retired Navy Admiral, and gave a prayer.
We have a Bible study group that meets every Thursday. We met
yesterday in Jim Inhofe's hideaway. Every time we meet, almost without
exception, Chaplain Black reminds us, Democrats and Republicans--those
of us who need the most help--he reminds us that of all the times the
Scripture is invoked, we should ask for wisdom.
Well, I ask for wisdom every night for myself, my colleagues in the
Senate, over in the House, the President, the Vice President, their
spouses, every night, that we have the opportunity to gain some wisdom.
When Scott Pruitt was nominated to be the Administrator for EPA, I
sent him a letter December 28, asking 52 questions, asking for
responses by January 10. They didn't come by January 10. We had a
hearing January 18. I got some answers, not all. One thing I also asked
for, also asked for by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, was access to what
the folks had been asking for from the Center for Media and Democracy
for 2 years; that is, access to thousands of emails in the AG's office,
and their back and forth with the fossil fuel industry, oil, natural
gas, coal, a variety of others. We would like to have access to those
emails.
When Mr. Pruitt went before our committee for his hearing on January
18, he was asked the question: Do you promise to provide information
reasonably requested by committees here in the United States Senate and
the Congress, including in electronic form? He said, yes, but he didn't
do it. In fact, for 2 years, the AG's office fought off efforts to try
to gain access to that information, electronic media. It took a judge
calling an emergency meeting yesterday in Oklahoma to say to the
attorney general's office: You have to turn this information over.
Normally, you know how long a 4-year request takes in Oklahoma to get
results like this? We are talking maybe 2 months. This was over 2
years.
Finally, we are going to get access to those emails. There may be a
reason why they were so reluctant to share those emails with us. We are
going to find out starting next Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, when we
get them. If we don't vote to support Senator Merkley's proposal, to
put off the vote until the Monday after we come back from recess, we
will not have the opportunity to take advantage of what the judge--I
don't know if it is by Divine intervention, but this judge has given us
the opportunity to gain wisdom, to make a smarter decision, to make a
better informed decision. If we vote up or down on Mr. Pruitt's
nomination today, we pass up a great opportunity to get a fuller
picture.
Now, my Republican friends will say: He sat through the longest
hearing of any EPA Administrator in the history of our country. He has
answered 1,000 questions.
Let me just say that Gina McCarthy answered more when she was the
last EPA Administrator. She answered more--quite a few more, actually.
She took a little extra time to actually answer the questions.
[[Page S1389]]
So many of the responses we got to the thousands of questions for the
record asked of this nominee--the answers were evasive, they were
incomplete, and sometimes they were just totally nonresponsive. You can
say he answered all the questions, but how well? How thoroughly? How
responsively? Not so good. Not so good.
Friends, I want to put up here on the board--I have a board here.
Let's look at the third one.
Mr. President, how much time do I have?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Five and a half minutes.
Mr. CARPER. We have heard from a lot of folks, different views on
what we ought to be doing. One of them was from a fellow whose name is
Kyle Meyaard-Schaap. Who is Mr. Schaap? Good question. Mr. Schaap is
the leader or one of the spokespersons from a group--if I can find it
here; here we go--spokesperson for Young Evangelicals for Climate
Action.
He wrote us about Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Here is what he had to
say:
If Scott Pruitt embraces his own self-described pro-life
stance, he should fight to protect vulnerable lives from
birth to natural death--the lives of children born and
unborn, the elderly, people of color--from environmental
pollution. He should work tirelessly to ensure that everyone
has clean water and air. He should strengthen, not
eviscerate, an agency equipped to honor God's mandate to
steward and care for the creation.
Mr. Meyaard-Schaap goes on to say:
As Oklahoma attorney general, however, [Mr. Pruitt] has
done just the opposite. He has had the chance to protect
people from pollution and the harms of climate change.
Instead, he has brought multiple lawsuits against the EPA to
overturn measures that would safeguard clean water and air.
He had the chance to defend policies that cut the power plant
pollution that fuels climate change and pollutes our air.
Instead, he cast doubt on climate change and downplayed the
moral imperative to safeguard our climate and environment. He
had a chance to assist EPA in its mission to protect public
health. Instead, he questioned its mission entirely and
sought to defend industry from regulation.
We all have an obligation to protect the health of our children,
families, and the world in which we live. For me, this is not only my
responsibility as a parent and official elected to serve the people of
Delaware, it is a moral calling.
I sat for 8 years as a member of the National Governors Association.
For 7 years, this lady sat right next to me. She was the Governor of
New Jersey. She went on to become the Administrator of the EPA--the
very position to which Scott Pruitt has been nominated. She is not a
Democrat. She is not a progressive. She is not a knee-jerk liberal. She
is a Republican. She was not only the Governor of her State for 7
years, but she was the head of EPA for a number of years under George
W. Bush. Here is what she basically said about Scott Pruitt, her words,
not mine. She said: ``[I] can't recall ever having seen an appointment
of someone who was so disdainful of the agency and the science behind
what the agency does.'' That bears repeating. ``[I] can't recall ever
having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the
agency and the science behind what the agency does.'' Those are
powerful words.
Just as I think that the idea of waiting another week or so to get
the wisdom that those thousands of emails might contain--we don't have
to wait for the wisdom from this woman who has walked in these shoes,
serving her State as Governor and serving this country as the leader of
the Agency that protects our public health for all of us. My hope is
that our colleagues will not ignore this wisdom.
Lastly, I will say this: Come next Thursday, Friday, we are going to
start getting the information from these emails. We will find out if
there is fire where there is smoke or not. If there is nothing there,
then there is nothing there, but if there is something there, I just
want to say to my Republican friends, if you are ready to vote for this
nominee without this complete information that we could have here to be
put to use in a positive way within 10 days from now, you pass up a big
opportunity.
We are in a sense, by voting on this nomination without this
information, flying blind. I am an old naval flight officer, 23 years
as a naval flight officer, retired Navy captain. In Southeast Asia, you
flew into monsoons and really bad weather sometimes. We never wanted to
fly blind. We always wanted to have a good weather forecast. We want to
avoid the places we ought to avoid. We wanted to fly at altitudes that
were safe. We wanted to use our radars to be able to find the pockets
to go through to be safe. We never wanted to fly blind.
If we basically, before we close up shop, vote for this nominee with
incomplete information, we are flying blind. It wasn't a very smart
thing to do in naval aviation, and it would not be a smart thing for us
to do here.
This is not a warning; this is just friendly advice from one
colleague to another: It is worth waiting an extra week to get this
information rather than voting today without it. Again, the words of
our Chaplain Barry Black always invoking us to ask for wisdom--I have
asked for it. The wisdom that I would impart to all of us today: Hit
the pause button. Get the information next week. Make our decision
then.
I yield back my time. Thanks so much.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past weeks, we have seen
Democrats continue to use one delaying tactic after another on the
floor of the Senate. They have tried to slow down the confirmation of
many of the administration's most important nominees. We have seen it
time and again. We have seen it in agencies all across the government,
including right now the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.
Democrats are just wasting time, and they are doing it intentionally.
They are not protecting our environment, not one bit. They are not
safeguarding the health of the American people, not at all.
Government agencies like the EPA and one after another need their
leadership in place and they need it in place now. What they don't
need, what the American people don't need, is more political theater
from the Senate Democrats.
We have heard a lot about Scott Pruitt's nomination to be
Administrator of the EPA. Much of what we heard from our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle has simply not been true.
I want to set the record straight. As head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt
will protect the environment. During his 6 years as attorney general
for the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has stood up to polluters, he has
worked across State lines, and he has worked across party lines. He has
done it to lower phosphorous levels in the Illinois River. He actually
negotiated a water rights settlement with Oklahoma tribes. Why? Well,
to preserve scenic lakes and rivers. He used commonsense policies. He
used them to protect the environment in Oklahoma, and he will follow
commonsense policies at the Environmental Protection Agency.
The delays we have seen by Democrats have never actually been about
Mr. Pruitt or his record or the answers he has given to questions about
his qualifications. He has answered over 1,200 questions. He has
answered four rounds of questions in committee, went for 6\1/2\ hours.
Members on the other side said these were very fair hearings. These
delays are all about obstruction. They are all about denying President
Trump his Cabinet. That is what this is all about. It is about
pretending that their candidate Hillary Clinton did not lose the
election in November. That is what this is all about.
We have seen them use the same tactics on one Cabinet nominee after
another. As the Cabinet nominees were named, what we saw was a list of
eight nominees come out who Senator Schumer had as his hit list of
nominees he was going to oppose, slow down, obstruct, boycott.
Democrats delayed. They delayed again. They delayed again. That is what
we saw in one after another.
When Scott Pruitt is confirmed today, he will take office later than
any incoming EPA Administrator for any new administration going back to
the 1980s.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle need to recognize that the
terrible precedent they are setting today with all of these relentless
and needless delays will continue into the future. It is a precedent,
just like the precedent that Harry Reid set when he changed
[[Page S1390]]
the rules of the Senate by breaking the rules. The Democrats need to
see how their actions will continue to play forward, will affect the
confirmation process for all future administrations, including
Democratic administrations.
The American people want someone in place to run these important
Departments. What we see from the Democrats is political theater on the
floor of the Senate.
President Trump deserves to have his team in place. President Trump
deserves to have his Cabinet in place. The Cabinet nominees deserve an
up-or-down vote from the Senate on the floor of the Senate. That is
what we are going to do today with Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who
is qualified and who has been nominated to be the Administrator of the
EPA.
Scott Pruitt will protect our environment, and he will protect the
health of all Americans. He is the right person for the job.
Mr. FRANKEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BARRASSO. At the end of my remarks, I will yield for a question.
So I say to you, as I come here to the floor, I chaired the
Environment and Public Works Committee on Scott Pruitt's nomination. I
listened to 6\1/2\ hours of testimony. I listened to and read through
responses that he gave to 1,200 questions that were asked of him. He
gave thorough answers--perhaps not the answers the Democrats wanted to
hear but answers that I felt were responsive.
So I come to the floor to urge all of my colleagues to support Mr.
Pruitt's nomination to be the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. He is a nominee who, as attorney general in
Oklahoma, protected the environment, worked to strengthen the economy,
and stood up for States' rights, which continues to be most crucial.
With that, Mr. President, I yield for a question.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, would my friend, the Senator from
Wyoming, read back the part that he said earlier in the speech about
Democrats doing this, the reasons we are delaying? Would he do me that
favor?
The reason I am raising this is that we had a parliamentary question
back when Elizabeth Warren was speaking on the Sessions nomination
which, I guess, the majority leader questioned whether she was, in that
case, questioning the motives or actions of a fellow Senator.
It seems to me that the Senator from Wyoming, whom I respect, was
doing the same about Democrats in the Senate.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from
Minnesota, I think he may be referring to a part where I say: The
delays by Democrats have never actually been about Mr. Pruitt's answers
to questions or about his qualifications. These delays, I say, are all
about obstruction and denying President Trump his Cabinet. I go on to
say: It is about pretending that their candidate, Hillary Clinton,
didn't lose the Presidential election.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry for the
Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary
inquiry, please.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, it seems to me that that is imputing to
Democrats' actions and motives not becoming of a U.S. Senator.
Mr. BARRASSO. Well, Mr. President, it is my--
Mr. FRANKEN. I made a parliamentary inquiry, and I would appreciate
an answer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In the opinion of the Chair, they do not
violate the rule.
Mr. BARRASSO addressed the Chair.
Mr. FRANKEN. Can I get some explanation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this is a very highly politicized
situation. It is not my intention in any way to impugn any of the
motives of any of the Members of this body.
I yield back my time.
Regular order.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, can I have a minute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the motion to extend
postcloture debate.
Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, may I ask the Chair for permission to
speak for a minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator will proceed.
Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you. I had no intention of actually filing a rule
XIX objection. My point is--and the reason is because I didn't want to
delay things.
But we have a nominee here who has sued the EPA 18 times. The reason
we are doing this is because we don't think this nominee is qualified.
It has nothing to do with us not recognizing the results of the
election, and I actually take offense to that.
I don't know why the Presiding Officer ruled the way he did because I
think it is obvious that it is imputing motives unbecoming to Senators,
by saying that we don't recognize the legitimacy of the election and we
are pretending that Hillary Clinton won the election.
I am just raising this as a point, which is that Senators do this
routinely, and if every time we raised a rule XIX on something like
that, we would delay--if you want to accuse people of delaying the
Senate--
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. Begin to wrap
up, please.
Mr. FRANKEN. I appreciate it. I thank very much the Presiding Officer
and I thank the Senator from Wyoming.
I am just making a point here.
Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order.