[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 972-976]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       NOMINATION OF SCOTT PRUITT

  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, having Scott Pruitt in charge of the EPA 
is bad for the air we breathe and the water we drink, and it is bad for 
American leadership on climate. It is not just that I have a different 
view from Mr. Pruitt on the Environmental Protection Agency, it is that 
he has made a career out of undermining the Clean Air and Clean Water 
Acts. It is not just that he is a Republican or that he doesn't share 
my views about clean energy.
  Look, I understand that when a Republican administration comes in, 
their EPA nominee is going to have a different view of what the Agency 
ought to be doing. I am not suggesting that we are going to get Henry 
Waxman or Jeff Merkley to run the EPA. That is not what is going on 
here. Here is what it is, and I want people to listen carefully.
  Scott Pruitt is a professional climate denier. That is his job. He 
has made his political bones trying to shred the EPA's ability to 
enforce the laws that protect clean air and clean water. The core 
mission of the EPA is to safeguard public health by enforcing the laws 
on the books, and the cornerstones of the EPA's authorities are the 
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. These laws were passed over 40 
years ago with huge bipartisan majorities, and they have been extremely 
successful.
  It is especially important for the dozens of young people watching C-
SPAN right now to understand that the state of the environment in the 
late 1960s was catastrophic, like out of a science fiction movie. Even 
for those of us who were around, it is a good reminder of what the EPA 
has accomplished over the decades.

[[Page 973]]

  The Cuyahoga River in Ohio was so polluted that it caught on fire. 
Lake Erie was so polluted that almost nothing could live in it. 
Bacteria levels in the Hudson River were 170 times above levels that 
could be considered safe. Raw sewage was directly discharged into 
rivers and streams where children swam. The FDA found that 87 percent 
of U.S. swordfish contained so much mercury that they were unfit for 
human consumption. Then the Clean Water Act was passed. We made 
incredible progress in the last 44 years. We still have a long way to 
go, as about one-third of our waterways are not yet fishable and 
swimmable, as the law requires.
  Scott Pruitt's opposition to the Clean Water Act and EPA makes me 
terrified that we could go back to the bad old days of water pollution. 
EPA's enforcement of the Clean Air Act is an even bigger success story. 
This law has saved millions of lives and improved the health of 
millions of others. EPA's enforcement of the law has reduced air 
pollution by 70 percent since 1970. Smog levels in L.A. have fallen 
two-thirds since their peak. Lead in the air is down 98 percent, carbon 
monoxide down 85 percent, sulfur dioxide down 80 percent. Acid rain is 
down over 50 percent and at a fraction of the anticipated cost. But 
this progress is in real jeopardy.
  As the Oklahoma attorney general and as the head of the Republican 
Attorneys General Association, he dismantled the unit in his office 
charged with enforcing Federal environmental laws and stood up a unit 
to undermine Federal environmental law. He led the opposition to the 
Clean Power Plan. He sued the Federal Government over a dozen times to 
prevent the implementation of rules that would protect our health and 
our environment. What he does is fight the EPA. That is his thing.
  As Oklahoma attorney general, he literally--I am not making this up--
he literally copied and pasted a letter from a major oil company onto 
his official State attorney general letterhead and then sent it to the 
EPA as though it were his own.
  I have never met Mr. Pruitt--and I assume he is personally a good 
guy--so I will say it like this: A person who works so closely with 
industries that pollute our air and water is an unusually bad fit to 
run the EPA. Never before in the history of the EPA has a President 
nominated someone so opposed to the EPA to run it, and on the most 
significant environmental challenge of our generation, he is 
aggressively wrong. He has said that the climate debate is ``far from 
settled'' and that ``scientists continue to disagree about the degree 
and extent of global warming and its connections to the actions of 
mankind.'' This, of course, is nuts. The climate debate is settled and 
has been for some time. More than 97 percent of climate scientists 
agree that the climate is changing and that humans are responsible. Ask 
a scientist, ask a farmer, ask a fisherman, ask a skier or snowboarder. 
If you don't believe 97 percent of scientists, will you at least 
believe your own eyes?
  His position even puts him at odds with the Department of Defense, 
which has called climate change a ``threat multiplier.'' Here is the 
good news. We are actually making a lot of progress in clean energy, 
almost all of it in the private sector. The cost of solar power has 
dropped by 60 percent in the last 10 years and more new solar capacity 
was added in 2016 than any other energy source. Wind power was by far 
the largest source added to the grid in 2015. Clean energy generation 
grew by about 20 percent in the last year, and the long-term extensions 
of the renewable energy tax credits give us hope to think that kind of 
trajectory can be sustained. This comes at a time when public concern 
about climate change is at an alltime high, and with three-quarters of 
Americans, including half of Republicans, supporting Federal efforts to 
reduce carbon pollution.
  This progress is fragile, and confirming Scott Pruitt can undermine 
our momentum. Again, here is Mr. Pruitt in his own words about the 
Clean Power Plan: ``The EPA does not possess the authority under the 
Clean Air Act to accomplish what it proposes in the unlawful Clean 
Power Plant.'' This is flat wrong.
  Let me quickly explain a lawsuit called Massachusetts v. EPA. The 
Supreme Court ruled that the Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate 
air pollution and carbon pollution as a pollutant so it is not only 
that the EPA may regulate greenhouse gas emissions, under the Clean Air 
Act they are actually required to do so. Mr. Pruitt has bragged that he 
``led the charge with repeated notices and subsequent lawsuits against 
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.''
  On climate change, he has said:

       Is it truly manmade or is it just simply another period of 
     time when the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat? Is it 
     just typical, natural type of occurrences as opposed [to] 
     what the administration says?

  I cannot think of a person more ill-suited to run this Agency.
  On clean energy, the Chinese are leading. Mexico is leading. Europe 
is leading, Germany, Africa. The question isn't whether the clean 
energy revolution will occur, the question is whether we will lead it 
or get left in the dust.
  This is where we are. A nominee who does not understand the vital 
role of clean air, clean water, and protecting the environment has been 
nominated to lead the EPA, who denies decades of scientific research.
  To my Republican colleagues, I have had many encouraging, rational 
conversations about climate with you but almost exclusively in private. 
I say this. This vote is the litmus test, the one your grandkids will 
ask you about. I know being in the Senate is about making choices--and 
lots of times it is great--but this issue, this vote is absolutely 
simple: Don't vote for a climate denier. You cannot dabble in 
conservation or energy efficiency or vote for a budget amendment 
recognizing the scientific consensus on climate change and then vote 
yes on this nominee. If you say you are not a climate denier, this is 
the point in your career when you get to prove it. If we find another 
nominee, even one who hates the Clean Power Plan, who shares your view 
on federalism, who shares your view about the United Nations, about 
President Obama, that is fair, that is fine, but this nominee is out of 
bounds.
  Please, consult your voters, your university experts, talk to your 
kids. It is their planet. It is their future--or consult with your own 
conscience.
  I know sometimes politics is complicated and the right thing to do is 
not that easy to determine in the fog of the battle. This is not one of 
those times. For future generations, for the planet, for the future of 
the Republican Party, you have to get this one right. If you are not a 
climate denier, do not put one in charge of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. PETERS. Mr. President, today I rise to talk about a critically 
important position in the Trump administration Cabinet: The 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA is 
charged with making sure that all Americans are safeguarded from major 
environmental threats to human health, where they live, where they 
learn, and where they work.
  Originally proposed by a Republican administration, the EPA's mission 
has been supported by Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike. 
Clean air to breathe and clean water to drink are basic human needs 
that we all must work to protect. Disagreements involving the EPA 
usually stem from how to best preserve our vital resources, and we 
certainly welcome those debates in the Senate.
  Oftentimes, the role of the Environmental Protection Agency is to 
provide a check and balance to activities that pollute our air, dirty 
our waterways, and contaminate our land. This is why I am so troubled 
by the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. Mr. Pruitt's 
track record on environmental issues as Oklahoma's attorney general is, 
in a word, dismal.
  I am particularly concerned about the influence of the fossil fuel 
industry over Mr. Pruitt's decisions and actions. As Oklahoma's 
attorney general, he filed 148 lawsuits against the EPA to

[[Page 974]]

undermine their efforts. In 13 of those cases, companies that gave 
political donations to Mr. Pruitt also joined in that suit. As ranking 
member of the Science Subcommittee, I am worried that scientific data 
of the Environmental Protection Agency will be minimized, suppressed, 
or politicalized. Mr. Pruitt has tried to instill doubt in the strong 
consensus of global climate change scientists, claiming that the debate 
on fundamental scientific principles is far from settled.
  If his confirmation goes through, I am concerned that the work of EPA 
scientists may be edited, twisted, or buried to protect special 
interests and prevent necessary action. Many Michiganders are 
rightfully afraid that Mr. Pruitt will not enforce our bedrock 
environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. We 
have seen him fight against these very laws from his current position.
  All across the Nation, communities are dealing with contamination and 
environmental catastrophes. Rural and urban communities alike depend on 
the strength of these laws as well as EPA's resources and their 
expertise. For example, the people of Flint, MI, are still suffering 
through devastating effects of a catastrophic drinking water crisis. 
The Environmental Protection Agency is heavily involved to make sure 
the drinking water in Flint will be safe and the National Safe Drinking 
Water Act rules will be updated. I am very concerned that the EPA will 
ignore the lessons learned after the Flint water crisis under 
Administrator Pruitt, and Flint is not the only community facing a 
water quality crisis. For example, Monroe County--which gets its water 
from Lake Erie--has seen its drinking water affected because of toxins 
in western Lake Erie.
  Algae blooms--a result of runoff pollution--have made their way into 
drinking water intakes. Harmful algal blooms are a problem that 
scientists say will only get worse as we see higher temperatures and 
more precipitation in the future.
  In addition to providing safe drinking water, I am concerned that 
enforcement of clean air policies would be weakened. Keeping our air 
clean isn't just about climate change. It is about keeping pollutants 
out of the lungs of our children. People in places like Southwest 
Detroit and St. Clair County all too often suffer the harmful impacts 
from poor air quality. Detroit has some of the highest child asthma 
rates in the entire country. Children can't learn if they are too sick 
to be in school.
  Mr. Pruitt has a record we can look at, and it is very extreme. He 
has attacked measures that reduced interstate smog pollution, including 
protections against arson and mercury. If Mr. Pruitt has sought to 
weaken these protections around the country that protect us from 
poisons like arsenic and mercury, I think we have to ask the question, 
If he is confirmed, will he be protecting American families or will he 
be protecting the bottom line of multinational corporations?
  To those who welcome Mr. Pruitt's approach of attacking the EPA, I 
would say strengthening our economy and our environment are not 
mutually exclusive. In fact, each effort depends on the success of the 
other. We must protect our natural resources so future generations will 
be able to sustainably use them.
  Businesses can only attract top talent and jobs to the United States 
if we have clean places to live and to work and if we have a healthy 
workforce. Sick days brought on by environmental toxins hurt small 
businesses, and environmental catastrophes can decimate a lifetime's 
worth of equity built up by homeowners.
  Smart, effective protections can be good, not just for our physical 
health but for our economic health as well. Previous EPA nominees from 
both parties have understood these basic principles. What separates Mr. 
Pruitt from past EPA nominees is his contempt for the mission of the 
Environmental Protection Agency and his disregard for the science that 
provides the very foundation for the Agency's actions.
  Just as I would not vote to confirm a fox to guard a henhouse, I will 
not vote to confirm Mr. Pruitt to safeguard our Nation's environment.
  I urge my colleagues to join me to oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I spent the last few days having town hall 
meetings at home. It was a big challenge. We had a tremendous amount of 
snow. The distinguished Presiding Officer is very familiar with that. 
We had the most snow since 1937, and it just goes on and on. We are 
battling freezing rain. Yet Oregonians came out in big numbers to 
participate in the discussion about what is going on in Washington, DC. 
They were particularly troubled about what was being done at the 
Environmental Protection Agency in the nomination of Scott Pruitt to 
head it. We had 200 people in McMinnville on Saturday night, a small 
community. I think the temperature was about 22 degrees. What really 
troubled them is that it sure looks like, when you examine the record 
of Mr. Pruitt, that he is trampling on everything we call the Oregon 
Way. The Oregon Way is something that Democrats, Republicans, people 
across the political spectrum subscribe to because it involves 
protecting our treasured land, air, and water. It was something we want 
for our generation, and we will pass it on to our kids, and it has been 
hugely valuable to us in attracting more industries that pay well 
because the workers at those industries want clean air and clean water.
  When you look at Mr. Pruitt's career, it really upends everything 
that I would call the Oregon Way--repeated attempts to weaken or 
eliminate health-based environmental standards, air quality standards 
for toxic air pollutants, limits on carbon emissions to take on the 
challenge of climate change. These rollbacks are particularly harmful 
to children and low-income households, communities of color, 
minorities, families, and communities.
  Yesterday, Senator Merkley and I spoke at our wonderful Martin Luther 
King Day Breakfast put on by The Skanner. Bernie and Bobbie Foster have 
been doing this for years. All I could think of is, if you roll back 
clean air and health standards, the people who are going to be hurt the 
most are low-income minorities, and communities of color. I don't see a 
big outcry in America for policies that would do that kind of harm to 
some of the most vulnerable Americans.
  Mr. Pruitt also has a troubling history of denying that fundamental 
science really ought to be the basis of American policymaking when it 
comes to environmental protection.
  For example, he disputed the Agency's science-based findings in 2009 
that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Now, my view 
is that this is an inarguable and unfortunate reality of climate 
change. But Mr. Pruitt's challenge suggests either a misunderstanding 
about how environmental agencies ought to make science-based decisions 
or, even worse, a habit of setting science aside when the outcome is at 
odds with the special interests.
  Again, that comes back to the kind of comments that were made during 
my five town hall meetings over the last few days at home. People would 
say: Look, Democrats and Republicans at home in Oregon, great 
Republican Governors--particularly led by the late Tom McCall--they 
would constantly come back to the proposition that you should not let 
the special interests trample on your treasures, your land and your air 
and your water, because not only was it bad for this generation--our 
generation--but it would be particularly damaging to our young people.
  So it is really troubling that this has been the choice of the 
President-elect. My own view is that when it comes to environmental 
standards, one of the unsung successes of the last few years has been a 
rule cutting emissions of mercury, arsenic, lead, and other dangerous 
materials. It prevented, in 2016, 11,000 premature deaths. My concern 
is that a lot of those deaths would be seen in minority communities and 
communities of color, the people I was concerned about when we had our 
Martin Luther King Day Breakfast.

[[Page 975]]

  Mr. Pruitt worked hard to gut that rule. He really pulled out all the 
stops to oppose a rule cutting emissions of mercury, arsenic, lead and 
dangerous heavy metals. He worked hard to gut it. If he is confirmed, 
he may just possibly be successful.
  Now, the message that I have heard again and again is that we can do 
better than this. We can do better than this. I think the American 
people, when they see what is at stake--it has been hard to follow all 
of the hearings. I know that I was very interested in the questioning 
in the Foreign Relations Committee by the Presiding Officer. I was 
trying to follow all the nominations, and I could not get to all the 
hearings. I could not follow all of the questioning that I thought was 
important.
  But even when all of this is going on, when people tell you before a 
Trailblazers game--at home in Portland, a pregame event--that they are 
unhappy about the environmental rules and the prospects of the 
environmental rules being gutted by the new head of the EPA, you know 
that you have people alarmed.
  Oregon is no stranger to the threats of pollution. In 2015, there was 
a discovery that heavy metals, including cadmium and arsenic, had been 
emitted for decades into the air of Portland neighborhoods at dangerous 
levels.
  This pollution was caused by a regulatory loophole the size of Crater 
Lake. At the time, I called on the Environmental Protection Agency to 
take action. Within days, they were on the ground in Portland helping 
to assess the public health risks. Not long after, they identified the 
cause of the regulatory oversight and corrected course.
  It seems to me that Americans need to trust that the Environmental 
Protection Agency will be able to defend their communities from air 
pollution or from water contamination. That is how we have always 
looked at it in my home State of Oregon. We always felt that we could 
trust those that we elected of both political parties for years and 
years to say: You don't mess with Oregon's land and air and water.
  Now, obviously, we have continued, even with that ethic, to have 
problems. While I was pleased that we were able to get some significant 
public health changes after we made that discovery in 2015 that there 
were heavy metals, including cadmium and arsenic, in the air of our 
neighborhoods, we have to do better. We have to do better at every 
level of government, and the EPA plays a critical role in ensuring 
clean and safe water, whether the water is running through a mountain 
stream or through a pipe to a Portland kitchen. Cities across the 
country, like my home town of Portland, are facing threats with high 
levels of lead in the water supply and outdated infrastructure to fix 
the problem.
  These communities are counting on the Environmental Protection Agency 
to be in a partnership with them to get this fixed to enforce strong 
water quality standards, and it only can happen if you have strong 
leadership that starts at the top. The American people have a right to 
have confidence that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency is 
going to defend the health and well-being of our communities and not 
the profits and the pocketbooks of the most powerful special interests 
in our country.
  I am going to close by saying that I am not confident that a Pruitt 
EPA will stand on the side of those families against the special 
interests. That is why tonight I state that I will be opposing the 
nomination of Mr. Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rubio). The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. BOOKER. Mr. President, I join with my colleagues today. I 
appreciate the Senator from Oregon and his remarks. I join with him and 
the others who have spoken to express my grave concerns about the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency.
  It is really unacceptable to me that someone who denies climate 
change science could be put in charge of an agency that is really 
tasked with advancing our national strategy to address climate change 
and the ills resulting. Mr. Pruitt has said--the overwhelming evidence 
to the contrary--that the debate is far from settled. He denies what is 
happening in regards to the evidence and the science and the 
conclusions of the near consensus of scientists.
  Time and again, this attorney general from Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt, has 
filed suits actually to block the EPA's clean air and clean water 
regulations protocols, which have allowed the United States to lead the 
efforts to reduce carbon emissions and address the climate crisis we 
face.
  There are few issues, in my opinion, that are as urgent as this, and 
across the globe that we must meaningfully do something collectively 
about. America must lead and not have a leader on this issue that is 
now so far out of step with global consensus. Everyone, from scientists 
and climate experts to business leaders and even our own military 
officials, understands that climate change is a real threat, not just 
to our environment but also to our economy, to the health of our people 
and our national security.
  It is disturbing that, in a way--and it also defies common sense--if 
you hear the way some people talk about climate change, including our 
President-elect and Mr. Pruitt, you might think that not only is 
climate change not a problem but that it is not our problem. This could 
not be further from the truth. We are already, here in America, dealing 
with and seeing the very real impact of climate change.
  Ask anyone living in my home State along the shore or a family in 
Louisiana whose home has been destroyed by severe flooding or a farmer 
whose land has become barren from the droughts in California whether or 
not these consequences are real for their families. Yet, the President-
elect and Mr. Pruitt not only refuse to acknowledge the consequences 
that we are facing but the dangerous and destructive path ahead. They 
are failing to face that if we fail to act.
  Now, the facts of climate change are worth repeating. Air 
temperatures are rising. Ocean temperatures are increasing. The ocean 
is becoming far more acidic. Sea levels are rising, both because of 
expansion of warming oceans and because of the melting of land-based 
snow and ice that is now entering our oceans. Many mountain glaciers 
are melting away and the Arctic sea ice is decreasing.
  Climate change is an American issue and it is a global issue. 
Addressing climate change should be a cause where we find agreement 
across political and geographic divides. In many ways, it already is. 
We have seen 36 Noble prize winners come together in 2015 in a historic 
declaration on the threats of climate change. Brad Schmidt, winner of 
the 2011 Noble Prize in Physics stated: ``I see this issue as the 
single greatest threat to human prosperity.''
  That is why, in late December 2015, 195 countries signed the Paris 
Agreement, a historic global agreement to meaningfully address climate 
change. That is why the Climate and Security Advisory Group, a 
nonpartisan group of 43 military and national security experts, 
including former military officials, spoke out to urge the next 
administration to ``comprehensively address the security risks of 
climate change at all levels of national security planning.''
  That is why more than 300 American businesses--significant economic 
engines of our economy--sent a letter to the President-elect urging him 
to address climate change and to continue America's participation in 
the Paris Agreement, saying: ``Implementing the Paris Agreement will 
enable and encourage businesses and investors to turn the billions of 
dollars in existing law-carbon investments into trillions of dollars 
the world needs to bring clean energy and prosperity to all.''
  You see, that is the false narrative--that somehow people's working 
on the climate change issue is done at the expense of businesses. But 
business leaders understand that there is a tremendous opportunity in 
the new economy--in a green-energy economy. There is tremendous 
agreement that America should be leading on this innovation

[[Page 976]]

and these ideas, not following that of others around the globe.
  They are health care folks who understand the challenges to American 
health. That is why the American Lung Association warned that ``climate 
change threatens the health of millions of people. While everyone is at 
risk for the harms of climate change and air pollution, those most at 
risk include infants, children, older adults, and those with lung 
disease (such as asthma and COPD), cardiovascular disease or diabetes. 
They are the ones who must rush to the emergency room when they cannot 
breathe because of worsened ozone pollution during a heat wave, or when 
smoke blows into their yard from wildfires that may be burning hundreds 
of miles away.''
  When we talk about climate change, we aren't talking about ideology 
or opinion. We are talking about science and evidence. We are talking 
about national security. We are talking about creating greater economic 
prosperity, and obviously we are talking about public health.
  America cannot sit idly by. We cannot be sidelined in this effort, 
not just because we produce such a significant amount of the climate-
changing chemicals and byproducts but also because we don't want to 
shirk the opportunities of being a leader in this space. And the 
American people really understand this. They understand that this isn't 
a lose-lose, that this could be a win-win for America and the globe. 
And that is why, according to a Gallop poll from March of last year--it 
said clearly that the majority of Americans are worried about global 
warming, and the majority of Americans believe global warming is a 
result of manmade pollution.
  I understand that for many people climate change is not an immediate 
urgency and reality, but, again, we should understand that right now, 
many of our more vulnerable Americans are suffering as a result. I see 
this when I go home from here in Washington to Newark. Newark has 
almost an epidemic level of asthma, with kids missing school because of 
this health and lung risk. The facts are clear: The pollutants kids 
breathe are real. For families living in communities on the shore in my 
State who are still rebuilding after Superstorm Sandy, the facts are 
clear: Their homes are being destroyed by unpredictable weather events. 
In New Jersey, we have seen the damage up and down our coast, with 
rising sea levels, flooding, and extreme weather.
  We know that those who can least afford it--low-income, hard-working 
families--are severely impacted around the country. Communities that 
are poor, often minority populations, disproportionately endure pain 
and suffering related to changes in the weather due to climate change.
  We know that when evacuation orders are given, those who can afford 
to leave their homes face a far different reality than those who have 
financial constraints.
  Not only is it more difficult for working families to deal with 
climate-related issues, but the neighborhoods and communities in which 
they live are often the ones that are more affected by the rising 
temperatures and the pollution caused by climate change. One researcher 
who conducted a 2014 study on the effects of climate change reported 
that ``generally, higher poverty neighborhoods are warmer, and 
wealthier neighborhoods are cooler.'' We see that in cities in New 
Jersey.
  Multiple studies continue to show that poorer communities are more 
likely to be exposed to harmful pollutants than higher income 
communities. One study from the University of Minnesota found that 
Americans of color are exposed on average to 38 percent higher levels 
of outdoor nitrogen dioxide and that disparities in exposure amount to 
about 7,000 deaths a year from the health problems caused by these 
realities.
  Climate change is already posing real dangers. The most recent 
National Climate Assessment released in 2014 noted that communities in 
rural America, as well as urban communities, have already experienced 
consequences of climate change, including ``crop and livestock loss 
from severe drought and flooding, damage to levees and roads from 
extreme storms, shifts in planting and harvesting times, and large-
scale losses from fires and other weather-related disasters.'' The 
report concludes that ``these impacts have profound effects, often 
significantly affecting the health and well-being of rural residents 
and communities.''
  In States like Oklahoma, for example, where the State legislature 
mandated a study on the potential impacts of climate change, the group 
commissioned to do that study, the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 
definitively concluded the following:

       The Earth's climate has warmed during the last 100 years. 
     The Earth's climate will continue to warm for the foreseeable 
     future. Much of the global average temperature increases over 
     the last 50 years can be attributed to human activities, 
     particularly increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 
     Oklahoma will be impacted.

  Undoubtedly, New Jersey, Oklahoma--where Mr. Pruitt is from--and the 
rest of our country and the world will continue to be impacted by this 
problem, especially if America does not lead and falls behind.
  We have made great strides, though, in addressing climate change 
under President Obama, including critical tax credits for wind and 
solar energy that not only help deal with climate change but also help 
American businesses thrive and lead, with now more people being 
employed by solar than coal. We have the historic Paris agreement and 
EPA regulations to reduce emissions from the electric power and 
transportation sectors. We are making strides of which we all should be 
proud, and actually our economy is benefiting as a result.
  The United States has now emerged as a global leader in meaningfully 
addressing climate change. We cannot afford to slow down this progress, 
but I am afraid that under the leadership of President-Elect Donald 
Trump, that is exactly where we are headed. Despite scientific 
evidence, popular concern, and the real-life impacts of climate change 
being evidenced in communities all across the country, all different 
backgrounds, from urban to rural, our President-elect and his nominee 
for the EPA, Attorney General Scott Pruitt, plan to advance special 
interests ahead of the common interest, of the global interest, of 
America's interests.
  The United States has a long legacy of leading, being a global leader 
in times of crisis, and at a time when we see the realities of climate 
change, at a time when we and many scientists are concluding that there 
is a global crisis and military leaders are concluding that we have a 
global crisis, at a time when we are seeing the effect of that crisis 
being made real in regions across our Nation and our planet Earth, 
America must not waiver in its commitment.
  I believe the Environmental Protection Agency deserves a leader who 
is prepared to lead--not deny, not retreat, not equivocate, not 
surrender ground that we have gained. We deserve to have an EPA leader 
who is just that--someone who stands up to lead, who makes the 
difficult choices and finds ways to unify our country, to pull from the 
wisdom of the military, the wisdom of businesses, the wisdom of 
communities like the one in which I live, and chart a course for this 
country that helps to lead the globe, lead planet Earth out of this 
crisis and into the strength we can find through American leadership. I 
believe that is the task: that we can save our environment and create 
incredible prosperity in the future.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________