[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1128-1130]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF SCOTT PRUITT

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was not preparing to come down to speak 
today, but I just want to make a few comments because I have been 
listening to what is going on in one of the other rooms out there. 
Everyone is zeroing in and targeting a guy named Scott Pruitt, who they 
don't think should be confirmed to be the Administrator of the EPA. I 
know Scott Pruitt very well, and he happens to be the attorney general 
for my State of Oklahoma. In fact, I recruited him to run for the State 
legislature many years ago, and he is someone I know very well. He 
resides in my city of Tulsa, OK, and he is eminently qualified for this 
position. I would just like to make a couple of comments in response.

[[Page 1129]]

  I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee for some number 
of years, and during that timeframe, we started considering his 
nomination. I heard all kinds of criticism. I say to the Chair that 
they talk about the fact that he has sued the EPA and how can a person 
who has sued the EPA be qualified to serve as the Administrator of the 
EPA? Well, I think that is a pretty good qualification, considering 
what the EPA was doing during the Obama administration. Look at some of 
the lawsuits he has been involved with.
  ``WOTUS'' is the acronym for ``waters of the United States.'' Of the 
many regulations they have come up with, this is one of the most 
onerous. In fact, I would say that probably in all States--Louisiana, 
Oklahoma, and the rest of them--they gave the same response as the farm 
girl gave when we asked the question--I asked the question: What is the 
worst thing that could happen or has happened to the farmers and 
ranchers of America--not just in Oklahoma but throughout America? And 
they said it is not anything that is in the Agriculture bill, it is the 
overregulation of the EPA. When we ask the question ``Which of all the 
overregulations of the EPA is the worst one?'' according to farmers, it 
is the WOTUS regulation, the waters of the United States.
  For as long as I can remember, liberals have tried to get the 
jurisdiction of water away from the States and give it to the Federal 
Government. I mean, that is the general philosophy of someone who is 
liberal--they want the power of the United States to be concentrated in 
Washington. So this is a part of that effort. As a matter of fact, it 
was 6 years ago that there was a House Member and a Senate Member who 
introduced a bill to take the word ``navigable'' out of our laws. State 
governments have control of all water rights except for navigable 
waters. If they had taken the word ``navigable'' out, the Federal 
Government could have taken over the entire jurisdiction. The two who 
were doing that were Senator Feingold from Wisconsin and Congressman 
Oberstar from Minnesota. Not only did we defeat both of those pieces of 
legislation 6 years ago, but they were both defeated at the polls 
afterward. So if this is an issue, it is an issue that has been around 
for a long time.
  So yes, in fact, Scott Pruitt, as the attorney general of Oklahoma, 
from Tulsa, joined 15 other States, including the State of Louisiana, 
in suing to stop the rule that the Obama administration had put through 
in WOTUS, the water resources. To show how he was on sound ground, the 
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has since that time said that, yes, he 
was right. They put a stay on it.
  The next bill, the next of the regulations--I just did a TV thing 
where they were asking about the most onerous of regulations. It is 
kind of hard to answer that question because they are all so bad--they 
all inflict such a hardship on the business community throughout 
America--but the Clean Power Plan, let's go back and look at the 
history of that.
  The Clean Power Plan all started back in about 2002, when at that 
time they wanted to do it when they first started talking about global 
warming so they were going to somehow do away with the emissions of 
CO2. So they tried to do it with legislation in 2002, and 
then again in 2004, again in 2005, and about every other year since 
then, and it has always been rejected by the Senate. It has been 
rejected by the Senate by an increased margin each time. Yet they keep 
saying, no, we are going to have some type of cap-and-trade 
legislation. We calculated what that would cost. It is between $300 
billion and $400 billion a year, and frankly it wouldn't accomplish 
anything.
  The first administrator for the EPA under Obama was Lisa Jackson. I 
enjoyed her. I asked her the question: If we were to do away with 
CO2 altogether in the United States, would this have the 
effect of reducing it worldwide, and she said: No, because this isn't 
where the problem is. The problem is in China, India, and in Mexico. So 
the more we chase our ability to generate electricity to those areas, 
the more--and they don't have any restrictions on CO2 
emissions--then that is going to increase, not decrease.
  They were not able to pass it legislatively. So along comes President 
Obama, and he said: Well, we can't do it through legislation, we will 
do it through regulation, so they had the Clean Power Plan. The Clean 
Power Plan was essentially the same thing as the legislation we 
defeated.
  So Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, came along, and 
he filed a lawsuit against the EPA, and this worked out really pretty 
well. It had a lot of support behind it. It wasn't the Sixth Circuit, 
it was the U.S. Supreme Court that stayed this. So what I am saying is, 
sure, he has had the occasion, along with some 26 other States, in the 
case of the Clean Power Plan, of filing a lawsuit against the EPA, but 
he has been successful in doing that.
  Let me clarify another thing that has been misrepresented on this 
floor several times. They referred to a characterization I gave about 4 
or 5 years ago called the hoax. The hoax is not climate change. We all 
know the climate is constantly changing. All the evidence is there. 
There is scriptural evidence, historical evidence. It has always been 
there. The climate has always changed. The hoax is that the world is 
coming to an end because of manmade gases. That is the clarification 
that needs to be made if we are going to be completely honest.
  By the way, when they criticized Scott Pruitt for suing the EPA, I am 
reminding them that he also has sued several oil companies, including 
ConocoPhillips--he had a lawsuit against them for alleged double 
dipping--as well as BP and Chevron, so it is not just as if he is 
somehow owned by the oil companies. I always have to say, when people 
say the oil companies contribute to campaigns, not anything like the 
far left environmentalists do.
  I remember Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer said before the 2014 elections: I 
am going to put $100 million of my money to elect people who go along 
with all of these far-left programs. Of course, it didn't work in 2014. 
He actually at that time spent $75 million. This is one individual we 
are talking about. So those guys over there, they are the ones who are 
putting money into campaigns, and I understand that.
  The last thing I want to correct--and I wish more people would talk 
about this. Frankly, I wish President Trump would say more about this 
because they always talk about how 97 percent of the scientists go 
along with the global warming thing. That isn't true at all. In fact, 
if you go to my Web site, you will find a piece that was in the Wall 
Street Journal that makes it very clear that isn't true and documents 
that case. The scientists who have been saying this are one group that 
is called the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is 
the United Nations, in case there is someone who doesn't understand 
that. They are the ones who have provided all the credibility in terms 
of the science that backs up all the statements that are made about 
global warming.
  I had the occasion--some people are not aware that once every 
December, now for 21 years, the United Nations has had the biggest 
party of the year. It is always in some exotic place. I remember in 
2009 it was in Copenhagen. We had all the people--several friends I 
love dearly here in the U.S. Senate and in the House went over there to 
tell 192 countries that we were going to pass legislation that would 
have cap and trade. I went over as the truth squad of one person to 
tell them what had been represented to them was, in fact, not going to 
happen.
  Well, right before going, Lisa Jackson was the first nominee, or the 
first confirmed Administrator of the EPA. I asked her the question on 
the record, live on TV, in the committee room, on the committee that I 
chaired, I said: I am going to be going over to Copenhagen to tell them 
the truth over there, and, in the meantime, you are going to take over 
jurisdiction so you can try to do this with a regulation. To do that, 
you have to have an endangerment finding. To have an endangerment 
finding, you have to

[[Page 1130]]

have science behind that. She was smiling. She is a very honest person.
  I asked her: What science are you going to use for your endangerment 
finding that gives you the opportunity to do what you couldn't do with 
legislation that you think you can do with regulation? She said: The 
IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
  As luck would have it, it was a matter of days after that that 
climategate came about. How many people remember climategate? They 
never talk about it. Let me just tell you how it was characterized. 
Climategate was those individuals who were at the top of the IPCC had 
gotten together and tried to alter the science to support their point 
of view, and they got caught doing it. The world responded to it. 
Newsweek: ``Once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used 
car salesman.''
  ``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken 
straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . ''
  The U.N. scientist Dr. Philip Lloyd said: ``The result is not 
scientific.''
  They were all talking about climategate. They were talking about how 
the IPCC rigged the science.
  A guy that was an IPCC physicist said that ``Climategate was a fraud 
on a scale I've never seen.''
  Clive Crook of the Financial Times said that ``the stink of 
intellectual corruption is overpowering.''
  Christopher Booker with the UK's Telegraph--that is one of the 
largest in London--said it is the ``worst scientific scandal of our 
generation.''
  They are talking about the science that is behind the accusations 
they have made.
  So if anyone hears these claims repeated, or even if it has been 
repeated, saying that at least 97 percent of the scientists agree, they 
are not right.
  My time has expired, but I just wanted to clarify that so people 
know--because one thing I know that is going to happen is, Scott 
Pruitt, the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, will be 
confirmed by a good margin--I think by a party margin--to be the 
Administrator of the EPA. It will be a great change.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________