[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.
____________________