[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 34 (Monday, February 27, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1442-S1444]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CONFIRMATION OF SCOTT PRUITT

  Mr. SANDERS. Mr. President, I had very serious concerns about the 
nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt for Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and opposed his nomination. His 
record on the environment is abysmal. My office received a great number 
of comments from people in the State of Vermont, which takes 
environmental protection very seriously, as well as from all over the 
country. They fear that Mr. Pruitt is bought and paid for by the fossil 
fuel industry and the protection of our environment is in serious 
jeopardy. Make no mistake, the nomination of Scott Pruitt was a 
nomination designed to protect the fossil fuel industry and not the 
environment.
  In many ways, Scott Pruitt is the worst of the worst of all of 
Trump's nominees. Donald Trump was going to drain the swamp. He 
promised to ``break the cycle of corruption'' and ``give new voices a 
chance to go into government service.'' Well, guess who is running the 
swamp now: the same corporate cronies Trump promised to drain out of 
Washington.
  Scott Pruitt wants to be the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, but he is no friend of the environment. He boasts on 
his website that he is a ``leading advocate'' against the EPA. He said, 
``The agency's actions are at best incompetent, and at worst 
reprehensible.'' He testified to the House Committee on Science, Space, 
and Technology in May 2016 that ``the EPA was never intended to be our 
Nation's frontline environmental regulator.''
  What is particularly troubling is his record as Oklahoma's attorney 
general--as Oklahoma's chief enforcer of clean air and water 
protections for his constituents--he sued the EPA 14 times and still 
has 8 active cases against the EPA. In all but one of these 14 cases 
Pruitt brought against the EPA, he was on the side of corporate 
interests. And in 13 of the 14, these companies or trade associations 
were also financial contributors to Mr. Pruitt's political causes.
  Shockingly, Scott Pruitt disbanded the Environmental Protection Unit 
of the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office. He claims that he continued 
environmental protection, but the State budget shows that funding for 
``environmental law'' in the attorney general's office fell from 
$486,000 in 2011 to 0 in 2014. In the State's 2016 budget, there was a 
line item for ``environmental law''--with $0. In fact, of the more than 
700 press releases he issued as Oklahoma's top law enforcement 
official, not one touts an environmental enforcement case in Oklahoma. 
It seems clear that he abandoned all meaningful environmental 
protection. This is concerning because reports show that the Trump 
administration is considering eliminating the EPA's Office of 
Enforcement, which would mean that the Agency would no longer be able 
to independently enforce our Nation's antipollution laws.
  At a time when we have to strengthen environmental protection, Mr. 
Pruitt will be working overtime to carry out President Trump's goal to 
destroy the EPA. Does this sound like someone who should be running the 
EPA? Not to me. More than 230 different environmental, health, and 
public interest groups agree that Pruitt is unqualified--so do former 
EPA employees. More than 770 of them from across the country all signed 
on to a letter that asked us to reject Pruitt as the next EPA 
Administrator. When hundreds of environmental groups and former EPA 
employees tell us that this guy is not qualified, maybe we should 
listen.
  The scariest thing about Scott Pruitt being the Administrator of the 
EPA is that our EPA should be working nonstop to address the most 
pressing environmental issue of our time--the global crisis of climate 
change. In 2009, the EPA Administrator found that the carbon pollution 
causing climate change threatens the public health and welfare of 
current and future generations; yet President Trump has called climate 
change a ``hoax.'' In November 2012, he tweeted: ``The concept of 
global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. 
manufacturing non-competitive.''

  Perhaps it should come as no surprise that Mr. Pruitt takes the same 
page from President Trump. Pruitt said in March 2016, ``Reasonable 
minds can disagree about the science behind global warming, and 
disagree they do.'' He also said ``The debate about climate change is 
just that, a debate. There are scientists that agree, there are 
scientists that don't agree, to the extent of man's contribution and 
whether it is even harmful at this point,'' he added ``We've had ebb 
and flow, we've had obviously climate conditions change throughout our 
history and that is scientific fact. It gets cooler. It gets hotter. 
And we do not know the trajectory is on an unsustainable course. Nor do 
we know, the extent by which the burning of fossil fuels, and man's 
contribution to that, is making it far worse than it is.''
  When I questioned Mr. Pruitt in his confirmation hearing on January 
18, he said: ``I believe . . . the degree of human activity's impact on 
the climate is subject to more debate on whether the climate is 
changing or whether human activity contributes to it.'' He even told me 
that he thinks that his opinion on climate change is

[[Page S1443]]

immaterial to his role as EPA Administrator. This is ludicrous. It is 
not immaterial--it is in fact essential--that we have an EPA 
Administrator who agrees with the scientific data and is willing to 
lead the fight against climate change. Yet, in his answers, he stated, 
``there is a diverse range of views regarding the key drivers of our 
changing climate among scientists. I believe that these differences 
should be the subject of robust and open debate free from intimidation. 
If confirmed, I will continue to encourage an honest debate on our 
changing climate, the role of human activity, our ability to measure 
the degree and extent of human activity, and what to do about it.''
  Almost all--97 percent--of scientists have concluded that climate 
change is real. It is caused by human activity. And it is already 
causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. If we 
do not move aggressively to transition our energy system away from 
fossil fuels toward sustainable energy like solar, wind, and 
geothermal, the problem will become much worse.
  Just this month, a report in the peer-reviewed journal The 
Anthropocene Review, researchers found that humans are causing the 
climate to change 170 times faster than natural forces. This is just 
another reason why it is unacceptable for Mr. Pruitt to say that he 
``believe[s] the ability to measure with precision, the degree of human 
activity's impact on the climate is subject to more debate on whether 
the climate is changing or whether human activity contributes to it.''
  For 200 years, we have been burning increasing amounts of fossil 
fuels to heat our buildings, generate electricity, and power our 
vehicles. When we burn fossil fuels, we release significant amounts of 
carbon pollution into the atmosphere. In fact, today, humans release 
more than 35 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere every 
year. According to NASA, the concentration of atmospheric carbon 
dioxide has never exceeded 300 parts per million in the past 650,000 
years. In 2013, CO2 levels reached 400 parts per million for 
the first time.
  So it should not come as a surprise to hear that the planet is 
warming at an alarming rate: 2016 was the hottest year on record, and 
16 of the 17 hottest years have occurred since 2000. Nor should it come 
as a surprise that we are already seeing devastating effects of climate 
change all across the United States and around the globe: more intense 
wildfires, heatwaves, drought, extreme storms, flooding, rising sea 
levels, and more. Americans are worried. A study released last month 
shows that more than 6 in 10 Americans say that they worried about 
global warming.

  But climate change is not the only area that makes Americans worried 
about Pruitt being the EPA Administrator. They are worried about 
Pruitt's inaction in the face of a growing number of earthquakes in 
Oklahoma. In the past few years, Oklahoma has been plagued by thousands 
of earthquakes, which the U.S. Geological Survey said are tied to 
fracking wastewater injection. Oklahoma's current earthquake rate is 
now 600 times higher than its prefracking rate. Oklahoma now has more 
earthquakes on a regular basis than California.
  In 2011 in Prague, OK, The Oklahoman newspaper reported a 5.6 
earthquake, stating that scientists ``believe the earthquake was caused 
by injection wells in the area.'' To put that in perspective, an 
earthquake in the magnitude 5 range, like the one reported, releases as 
much energy as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. But, 
before 2009, there were, on average, two earthquakes a year in Oklahoma 
that were magnitude 3 or greater. By 2013, there were 109 magnitude 3 
or greater earthquakes; by 2014, that had grown to 585 magnitude 3 or 
greater earthquakes; and by 2015, there were 907 magnitude 3 or greater 
earthquakes.
  The damage was extensive; 40 to 50 buildings in Cushing, OK, were 
substantially damaged in a November 2016 earthquake. In reaction to the 
then-largest earthquake in September 2015, the Pawnee Nation passed a 
resolution against fracking activities after suffering damage to seven 
historic tribal buildings. The Ponca Nation also passed has a 
moratorium on fracking because the earthquakes have caused damage to 
their crumbling water infrastructure and buildings. Scientists say that 
Oklahoma is ``almost certain'' to have more earthquakes, with 
heightened risks of a large quake probable to endure for a decade.
  The Attorneys General in my State of Vermont, California, and New 
York have all frequently acted quickly to address environmental 
problems; yet, during Mr. Pruitt's hearing, he told me he did nothing 
to help folks in Oklahoma who had been hurt by earthquakes caused by 
fracking in Oklahoma. Pruitt's sole response to my questions during his 
hearing about what he had done to address the earthquake problem in his 
State was to say he has ``acknowledged that he is concerned.'' That is 
it. ``He's concerned.'' He did not stand up and say he will do 
everything he can to stop future earthquakes as a result of fracking. 
He did not sue the corporations who were causing the earthquakes on 
behalf of the people of Oklahoma. He did not hold a press conference. 
He did nothing.
  These earthquakes are so concerning because the EPA ``regulates the 
construction, operation, permitting, and closure of injection wells 
used to place fluids underground for storage or disposal'' as part of 
its role in preventing contamination of drinking water. So, if we let 
Pruitt will nor lead the EPA, there is nothing to say he will not 
abandon efforts to regulate waste fracking water injection to protect 
the American people from earthquakes. If his past record is any 
indication, it is very questionable that he will take action to protect 
communities from harmful effects like these.
  Maybe the reason so many are concerned he will abandon efforts to 
enforce environmental laws and why he was willing to abandon Oklahomans 
when they needed him is because he is in the pocket of corporate 
industry. Pruitt received more than $350,000 in contributions from the 
fossil fuel industry. Pruitt raised huge amounts for his two Federal 
PAC--known as Liberty 2.0 and Oklahoma Strong. According to Politico, 
Liberty 2.0 has raised more than $168,000 from energy interests, and 
Oklahoma Strong leadership has raised $72,000.
  In 2014, in a Pulitzer Prize winning investigation, the New York 
Times exposed that Pruitt and numerous other Republican attorneys 
general had formed secret alliances with energy corporations. The New 
York Times also exposed the Defense Fund, which is a dark money 
offshoot of the Republican Attorneys General Association. The Defense 
Fund received $175,000 in 2014 from Freedom Partners, which coordinates 
the Koch brothers' political activities. The New York Times also 
detailed how, in 2011, Pruitt wrote a letter to the EPA Administrator 
claiming that Federal regulators were grossly overestimating the amount 
of air pollution caused by energy companies drilling new natural gas 
wells in his State. Pruitt did not write the letter on behalf of 
Oklahoma residents; he did it on behalf of one of Oklahoma's biggest 
oil and gas companies, Devon Energy. As he fought for corporate donors, 
the American Lung Association named three urban regions in Oklahoma as 
having the 25 most heavily polluted air regions in the United States.
  These examples of Pruitt's corrupt relationship with corporate 
polluters are so shocking and dangerous because he wants to lead the 
EPA, an Agency which is most responsible for protecting our kids and 
grandkids from the very polluters he has protected for so long. For the 
sake of our children and grandchildren and the future of this planet, 
were there none of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who 
would speak out to say that Mr. Pruitt should not be confirmed as head 
of the EPA?
  The last time I checked, no one voted to pollute the environment in 
the last election. The majority of Americans do not agree that we 
should be dismantling protections that ensure clean air and clean 
water. In fact, according to Gallup, more than 7 in 10 Americans worry 
about drinking water pollution and air pollution. That is why we cannot 
allow Scott Pruitt to drive the EPA into the ground. He has shown that 
he wants to dismantle basic air, water, and climate protections.
  We cannot rollback decades of progress. In fact, we are in desperate 
need of strong laws and regulations to

[[Page S1444]]

protect the environment and fight climate change. Do not be fooled. 
Scott Pruitt is not for protecting American citizens and the 
environment, but for protecting giant polluting corporations. With a 
record like his, we cannot expect Pruitt to safeguard our drinking 
water and air from pollution. With Pruitt, the environment will be 
auctioned off to the highest corporate bidder no matter the cost to the 
American public. It was for all these reasons that I strongly opposed 
Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and I urged my colleagues to join me in voting 
no.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Mr. President, I speak in unity with my colleagues 
and highlight the irreparable harm that will be done to our environment 
and communities now that Scott Pruitt has been confirmed to be the head 
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. Pruitt has focused his career on working against the EPA's 
fundamental mission of protecting our Nation's environment, instead 
pushing an antienvironment agenda dictated by big corporations that 
have funded his campaigns and political career.
  Mr. Pruitt has been serving as Oklahoma's attorney general since 
2010, during which he has spent countless hours working to undermine 
and repudiate the very Agency he is nominated to run.
  Throughout his tenure, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA 14 times over orders 
that seek to protect our environment and the health and safety of our 
communities.
  Included in Mr. Pruitt's lawsuits were efforts to undercut basic, 
commonsense measures that are essential to Americans' health and 
safety: EPA safeguards for clean air and clean water. Yes, Mr. Pruitt 
supports undoing measures that ensure the air we breathe is not 
polluted and the water we drink is free of contaminants.
  And during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt contradicted his own 
record and biography, calling into question his knowledge of basic 
principles. Pruitt claimed he believes that the EPA has ``a very 
valuable role.'' And yet his own LinkedIn profile brags that he is ``a 
leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.''
  Almost 4,000 Nevadans reached out to my office urging me to vote 
against Mr. Pruitt.
  I want to read some stories from Nevadans who voiced their concerns 
about Mr. Pruitt and what is at stake for them--as well as countless 
other families across the country.
  From Jean Pierre LeBarry of Las Vegas, NV:

       I am of Basque descent, as is my whole family. I grew up in 
     Northern Nevada, as many other Basque folks did, on a ranch. 
     We did not have running water or even electricity. We did 
     have our sheep though. We were sheep ranchers, across the 
     great state of Nevada the industry flourished, but before I 
     had heard Al Gore say anything about climate change, I saw 
     its effects in our state [Nevada]. We stopped getting as much 
     snowfall; we would scour the desert for water to keep our 
     herd alive on the range. Year after year it got worse, slowly 
     killing our industry, thinning our herd, and giving me first 
     hand example of how severe climate change is. This was more 
     than 30 years ago I saw these changes taking place. After I 
     left the ranch, I worked as a government employee for the 
     Bureau of Land Management, until I retired. To see how much 
     disregard Scott Pruitt would have for my family and their 
     struggles with the deterioration of our climate; it is 
     appalling that anyone would dare to confirm his nomination to 
     head the Environmental Protection Agency, the very agency he 
     has tried so hard to dismantle already.

  From Sharon Ingram-Bevans of Reno, NV:

       My Husband was a Vietnam Vet and he died last March after a 
     10 year illness directly related to environmental pollution. 
     He was stationed at Camp Le Juhen North Carolina, exposed to 
     drinking water full of jet fuel, and some great general's 
     idea to have young Marines scrape and repaint Agent Orange 
     boxes while serving in the Refugee camps at Okinawa Japan. 
     Our Daughter has Thyroid disease due to this exposure also. 
     If we only paid attention to how we use and dispose of 
     substances we might have a better world to give to our 
     children. There is no Planet ``B'' and even rich people need 
     clean air and water.

  From Brittany Lamborn of Las Vegas, NV:

       I was born and raised in Nevada. My sister, brother, and I 
     grew up in the Las Vegas valley, surrounded by majestic 
     mountain ranges, fragrant pines, and breathtaking sunsets. 
     Away from the glitz and glamour of the Strip, I could lose 
     myself in the beauty of Red Rock or walk the trails on Mt. 
     Charleston. My mom would take us to Gilcrease Orchard to pick 
     fresh produce. My dad would take us on stargazing trips to 
     Cathedral Gorge in Panaca. I have never wished for another 
     home. Home means Nevada.
       Now I have two young children of my own. I put on a brave 
     face every morning so that they do not see my fear that 
     increases with each day. I fear that these God given wonders 
     will not be protected for them. I fear that the overwhelming 
     need to consume will eat up our natural resources. And I fear 
     that, unchecked, we will do irreparable harm to the only 
     planet we have. When the dust has cleared, I fear: What will 
     be left for our children?
       Climate change is a fact, not a feeling or an opinion. We 
     need someone at the helm of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency that will protect every Gilcrease Orchard, every Red 
     Rock, and every Cathedral Gorge in the United States. Scott 
     Pruitt is not that man.

  I know I am not the only Senator whose office was contacted by 
countless constituents, urging us to put the health and safety of our 
children and our environment first and oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
  I promised Nevadans I would come to Washington and fight for them and 
their priorities, and that is why I could not support Mr. Pruitt to 
lead the EPA. I urged my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do 
the same.

                          ____________________