[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2789-2836]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE CALENDAR

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the nomination.
  The legislative clerk read the nomination of Scott Pruitt, of 
Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the 
nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Scott Pruitt is the right person 
to run the Agency, and we need to confirm him.
  Over the past 8 years, the political leaders of the EPA have taken 
actions that have undermined the American people's faith in the Agency. 
They have pushed broad and sweeping regulations that have hurt our 
economy and have failed to protect our environment. These regulations 
include the so-called Clean Power Plan. This is a rule that will kill 
job growth in States like Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and my home State 
of Wyoming. These also include regulations defining the term ``waters 
of the United States.'' This was a classic example of Washington 
overreach. The Agency brought irrigation ditches, plowed farm fields, 
and even parking lot puddles under Federal control. With both of these 
rules, dozens of State governments have had to take Washington to 
court. Why? Well, to try to stop the crippling effects of these 
Washington-based regulations.
  The Agency's outrageous actions have extended beyond these rules and 
have had real consequences for many American families. According to the 
chamber of commerce, since 2008 this regulatory rampage by the EPA has 
destroyed 19,000 coal-mining jobs nationwide. In Kentucky, nearly 4 out 
of every 10 coal-mining jobs have disappeared over the past 8 years. 
Ohio and Pennsylvania have each lost more than 1,000 fossil fuel 
electric power jobs during the same period. In West Virginia, 5,200 
coal-mining jobs have vanished just since 2011.
  The total cost of all of this new redtape from the Environmental 
Protection Agency is more than $300 billion. The leadership at the EPA 
has failed. It has failed because a lot of their regulations are bad 
ideas.
  That is not the only way the political leaders at the Agency have 
failed; they have actually hurt people and damaged the environment 
directly. In 2015, more than 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater 
spilled into the river at the Gold King Mine in Colorado. The 
government Agency charged with protecting our environment actually 
caused this spill and poisoned a river. This was a direct result of 
negligence on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency. This 
plume of toxic liquid flowed downstream to New Mexico and polluted the 
Navajo Nation's main source of drinking water and irrigation water.
  In the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA then denied 
$1.2 billion in damage claims from the farmers, the Native American 
tribes, and small businesses impacted by the EPA's own negligence.
  In Flint, MI, old pipes and improperly treated water caused lead 
poisoning in children. When the leadership at the EPA learned of the 
issue, they failed to respond in a timely manner. The regional EPA 
administrator actually resigned following the incident.
  For the last 8 years, the political leaders of this Agency have been 
reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant. Change is badly needed at the 
Environmental Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt will be that change. 
Mr. Pruitt has served as attorney general in the State of Oklahoma 
since 2011--6 years. He has worked to protect the environment in his 
State, while also working for the benefit of all the people of 
Oklahoma.
  He has taken on polluters. He has worked across party lines to do it. 
When poultry farmers in Arkansas, a neighboring State to Oklahoma, were 
increasing phosphorous levels in the Illinois River that runs between 
the States, he worked with Arkansas' Democratic attorney general on a 
solution. They found a way to reduce pollution and establish permanent 
standards.
  Former Arkansas Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, called Pruitt 
a ``staunch defender of sound science and good policy as appropriate 
tools to protect the environment in his State.''
  Scott Pruitt also helped negotiate a water rights settlement between 
tribes in Oklahoma. The deal will help preserve scenic rivers and lakes 
so they can be enjoyed for generations to come.
  Scott Pruitt also stood up to industry when they caused pollution. 
That is why the entire Oklahoma congressional delegation has endorsed 
his nomination. He has been an advocate for the environment in 
Oklahoma, and he will be an advocate for the environment in Washington.
  When the EPA overstepped its mission, Attorney General Pruitt led the 
charge to rein in Big Government Washington overreach. Time after time, 
Scott Pruitt worked with other States to challenge the Agency when it 
exceeded its authority. Under his leadership, this Agency will respect 
the rule of law.

[[Page 2790]]

  Attorneys general from 24 States have endorsed Scott Pruitt as 
someone who can protect the environment while also protecting State 
decisionmaking. He has also won the support of small businesses and 
farmers around the country. Groups like the National Federation of 
Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National 
Association of Home Builders, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and 
many others have voiced their support for Mr. Pruitt.
  As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I take the 
nomination process very seriously. Our committee thoroughly vetted Mr. 
Pruitt. We held a confirmation hearing that lasted more than 6 hours. 
That is by far the longest confirmation hearing for an EPA 
Administrator on record. During this hearing, Attorney General Pruitt 
was asked more than 200 questions by Members of the committee. We had 
four rounds of questions--an unprecedented number. Our Democratic 
colleagues on the committee noted during the hearing how fair the 
process was. They said how much they appreciated the opportunity to ask 
so many questions. After the hearing, committee members submitted 
another 1,078 written questions to Mr. Pruitt to answer for the record. 
Again, this is the most ever for a nominee to be Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. His answers were thoughtful, and they 
were thorough. That is why I was very disappointed to see the Democrats 
on the committee decide to boycott the meeting to vote on the Pruitt 
nomination.
  The minority complained that he didn't answer enough questions. 
Democrats have even complained that he has not been vetted thoroughly 
enough. That is ridiculous. Scott Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted 
nominee we have ever had to lead this Agency. Democrats are using 
delaying tactics to slow down the confirmation of many of this 
administration's most important nominees. These boycotts and delay 
tactics do nothing to protect our environment or the health of 
Americans. Democrats are engaged in nothing more than political 
theater. They are wasting time while the Environmental Protection 
Agency needs a new Administrator.
  Attorney General Pruitt has protected the environment in his home 
State. He is endorsed by his peers, and he has been thoroughly vetted 
for the job. He will make an excellent EPA Administrator. It is time 
for the Senate to confirm him.
  Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record the following items in support of Mr. Pruitt's 
nomination: First are two op-eds I authored, one is from FOX News that 
is entitled ``For Eight Years, the EPA Has Made Life Hard for Too Many 
Americans. That's About to Change.''
  The second is from USA TODAY, entitled: ``The Strong Leader the EPA 
Needs.''
  I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some other 
items: a letter from Dustin McDaniel, Democrat and Arkansas former 
attorney general. In the letter, he writes that he ``saw firsthand how 
Attorney General Pruitt was able to bridge political divides and manage 
multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome that was heralded by most 
credible observers as positive and historic.''
  Another item for the Record is a letter from 24 State attorneys 
general who wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt's qualifications.
  Also for the Record is a letter I received from J.D. Strong. He is 
the director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. In 
the letter, Mr. Strong directly refutes a New York Times article titled 
``Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA Pick, Backed Industry Donors over 
Regulators.''
  Mr. Strong writes:

       As a fifth generation Oklahoman and someone who has devoted 
     my career to natural resource protection, I take great pride 
     in the progress that has been made in improving Oklahoma's 
     land, air, water, and wildlife resources.

  He goes on to say--

       For the past six years, General Pruitt has been 
     instrumental in many of our successes and never asked me to 
     compromise regulatory efforts to benefit industry.

  Also, I would like to include in the Record an op-ed by Ed Fite, the 
former agency administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. 
He writes:

       Scott Pruitt is one who is committed to finding a balance 
     that protects and preserves our environment while at the same 
     time affords an opportunity for a robust economy to exist. 
     Achievement of one doesn't have to be exclusive of the other.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                      [FoxNews.com, Jan. 17, 2017]

  Sen. Barrasso: For 8 Years the EPA Has Made Life Hard for Too Many 
                   Americans. That's About To Change

                     (By Sen. John Barrasso, M.D.)

       Seventy-five thousand dollars per day. That's how much the 
     Environmental Protection Agency threatened to fine a private 
     land owner in my home state of Wyoming. The crime: digging a 
     pond in his back yard.
       This was an appalling overreach by the Obama 
     administration's EPA and its regulation of American's 
     property.
       Sadly, this story is not unique.
       For the past eight years, the EPA has abused and attacked 
     far too many hard-working American families.
       A regulatory rampage by EPA has led to the loss of 
     thousands of coal mining jobs in Wyoming, West Virginia, 
     Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky.
       Wisconsin is poised to lose more than 20,000 jobs in the 
     next decade because of the Obama administration's proposed 
     regulations on carbon emissions.
       The misguided obsession of the EPA has created needless 
     economic burdens for Americans. It has, at the same time, put 
     people's health in danger.
       Negligence on the part of the EPA resulted in more than 3 
     million gallons of toxic wastewater being dumped into a river 
     at the Gold King Mine in Colorado.
       The plume of toxic liquid flowed downstream to New Mexico 
     and polluted the Navajo Nation's main source of drinking and 
     irrigation water.
       In Flint, Michigan, aging pipes and improperly treated 
     water caused lead poisoning in children. When EPA officials 
     learned of the pending disaster, they failed to respond.
       The agency's misplaced priorities are harming state 
     governments as well.
       North Dakota stands to lose more than $100 million in tax 
     revenue over the next four years because of the Obama 
     administration's ``clean power plan'' regulations. The state 
     will have to look to already-strapped families to make up the 
     difference or else cut back on services.
       Disregard for the consequences of its actions has become 
     the trademark of the EPA for the last eight years. Policy 
     goals and talking points have consistently taken priority 
     over American families. This cannot be the case any longer.
       As chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works, I look forward to ushering in wholesale change 
     at the EPA. I will be doing it alongside a committed and 
     capable administrator.
       President-elect Trump has named Oklahoma Attorney General 
     Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA and to overhaul the agency. 
     Attorney General Pruitt has seen the effects of over 
     regulation in his own state and has worked to stop them.
       Pruitt has distinguished himself by challenging the Obama 
     administration on several of its most burdensome rules. He 
     stood up for Oklahomans against the EPA's extreme regulations 
     on greenhouse gasses, methane emissions, and cross state air 
     pollution. He took action against unworkable water rules and 
     air standards. He sued the federal government to make sure 
     that it was interpreting the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts 
     as Congress actually wrote them, not how it benefited 
     President Obama's political agenda.
       Attorney General Pruitt is respected by his peers for the 
     work he has done. His work in Oklahoma protected the 
     environment and strengthened the economy by standing up for 
     states' rights. Attorneys general from 24 states authored a 
     letter in support of his nomination. They know he can and 
     will rein in Washington.
       President-elect Trump has vowed that his administration 
     will overturn two federal regulations for every new one it 
     proposes. The administrator of EPA will play a vital role in 
     keeping that promise. He must make sure that the agency meets 
     its mission of protecting our environment--ensuring clean 
     water, air, and land--while allowing our economy to grow.
       Our committee is taking up the nomination of Attorney 
     General Pruitt this week. I look forward to hearing more 
     about his vision for the agency and how he will help get 
     Americans back to work.
       The EPA has made the last eight years hard for families in 
     Wyoming and across rural America. Today, there is reason to 
     be hopeful.
       The status quo at the EPA is changing.
                                  ____


                   `The Strong Leader the EPA Needs'

                           (By John Barrasso)

       The Environmental Protection Agency needs reform.

[[Page 2791]]

       Anyone who doubts the deterioration at this once-respected 
     agency should recall the summer of 2015, when the EPA spilled 
     more than 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater into a 
     Colorado river.
       Last month, the EPA denied $1.2 billion in damage claims 
     from farmers, Native American tribes and small businesses. 
     This disaster followed the EPA's mishandling of the water 
     crisis in Flint, Mich.
       The government agency responsible for protecting the 
     environment and the health of Americans has been endangering 
     the public's health.
       The EPA has become a bloated regulatory behemoth that has 
     lost sight of the needs of the American people and the 
     environment. The agency's bureaucrats have been more 
     preoccupied with pushing punishing new regulations.
       This red tape killed thousands of jobs in energy-producing 
     and manufacturing states such as West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
     Kentucky, Indiana, North Dakota and my state of Wyoming.
       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, President Trump's 
     nominee to lead the EPA, is committed to protecting the 
     environment--ensuring clean air, water and land--while 
     allowing the American economy to grow.
       Pruitt will be the strong leader the EPA needs. He has seen 
     the consequences of the agency's overreach, and he has worked 
     to restore its original focus. He negotiated a water rights 
     settlement with tribes to preserve scenic lakes and rivers.
       He worked with Dustin McDaniel, a Democrat and former 
     Arkansas attorney general, to reduce pollution in the 
     Illinois River, which flows between their two states. He 
     stood up to oil and gas companies that polluted his state's 
     air and water. Pruitt has won bipartisan recognition and 
     support. McDaniel called him a ``staunch defender of sound 
     science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the 
     environment.''
       Scott Pruitt will be an excellent EPA administrator, 
     committed to reform.
                                  ____

                                                 State of Alabama,


                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                  Montgomery, AL, January 4, 2017.
     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Dirksen Senate Office Building,
     Washington, District of Columbia.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, District of Columbia.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: As the 
     attorneys general of our respective states, we write to 
     express our unqualified support for our colleague and the 
     Attorney General of Oklahoma, E. Scott Pruitt, as 
     Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       As attorneys general, we understand the need to work 
     collaboratively to address threats to our environment that 
     cross state lines, as well as the importance of a federal 
     counterpart in the EPA Administrator who possesses the 
     knowledge, experience, and principles to work with our states 
     to address issues affecting our environment. We believe that 
     no one exemplifies these qualities more than Scott Pruitt.
       As the Attorney General of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt developed 
     expertise in environmental law and policy. He negotiated a 
     historic water rights settlement with Indian tribes that 
     preserved the ecosystems of scenic lakes and rivers; he 
     worked with his Democrat counterpart in Arkansas to reduce 
     pollution in the Illinois River; and he represented the 
     interests of Oklahomans in rate cases against utility 
     companies and in numerous actions against those who 
     contaminated his state's air and water.
       Attorney General Pruitt is committed to clean air and clean 
     water, and to faithfully executing the environmental laws 
     written by Congress. He believes that environmental 
     regulations should be driven by State and local governments--
     a notion endorsed by Congress in the Clean Air Act and Clean 
     Water Act. When our nation is confronted with issues 
     affecting the environment that are not covered by a 
     particular statute, Scott will come to Congress for a 
     solution, rather than inventing power for his agency. He 
     wholeheartedly believes in a strong Environmental Protection 
     Agency that carries out its proper duties, providing a 
     backstop to state and local regulators as they develop 
     environmental regulations suited to the needs of their own 
     communities.
       Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney 
     general, he is also our friend. A man of deep faith who is 
     committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks 
     always to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership 
     have been invaluable to us over the years.
       The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     plays a critical role in our Nation's government. Attorney 
     General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career that 
     he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to 
     serve as the Administrator of the EPA. We urge the Senate to 
     confirm his nomination.
           Sincerely,
       Jeff Landry, Attorney General, State of Louisiana; Alan 
     Wilson, Attorney General, State of South Carolina; Luther 
     Strange, Attorney General, State of Alabama; Marty Jackley, 
     Attorney General, State of South Dakota; Patrick Morrisey, 
     Attorney General, State of West Virginia; Adam Laxalt, 
     Attorney General, State of Nevada; Mark Brnovich, Attorney 
     General, State of Arizona; Herbert Slatery, Attorney General, 
     State of Tennessee.
       Curtis Hill, Attorney General, State of Indiana; Brad 
     Schimel, Attorney General, State of Wisconsin; Ken Paxton, 
     Attorney General, State of Texas; Bill Schuette, Attorney 
     General, State of Michigan; Doug Peterson, Attorney General, 
     State of Nebraska; Chris Carr, Attorney General, State of 
     Georgia; Sean Reyes, Attorney General, State of Utah; Wayne 
     Stenehjem, Attorney General, State of North Dakota.
       Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, State of Arkansas; Pam 
     Bondi, Attorney General, State of Florida; Lawrence Wasden, 
     Attorney General, State of Idaho; Tim Fox, Attorney General, 
     State of Montana; Derek Schmidt, Attorney General, State of 
     Kansas; Josh Hawley, Attorney General, State of Missouri; 
     Peter Michael, Attorney General, State of Wyoming; Mike 
     DeWine, Attorney General, State of Ohio.
                                  ____

                                               McDANIEL RICHARDSON


                                              & CALHOUN, PLLC,

                                Little Rock, AR, January 18, 2017.
     Re Attorney General Scott Pruitt's Nomination To Serve as 
         Director of the Environmental Protection Agency.

     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Dirksen Senate Office Building.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members 
     of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: My 
     name is Dustin McDaniel. I am an attorney in Little Rock, 
     Arkansas. I served as the Democratic Attorney General of the 
     Stale of Arkansas from 2007-2015. During that time, I served 
     for three years as the Co-Chair of the Democratic Attorneys 
     General Association, I am a member of the Democratic National 
     Committee and was a strong supporter of Secretary Clinton's 
     campaign for President. I am grateful for your work on this 
     committee. I believe in the core mission of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. I believe that climate change is real and 
     overwhelmingly the result of human activity. I believe that 
     the United States has a moral obligation to lead the world in 
     shaping climate policy. These challenges in a hostile 
     political environment will be acutely felt by the next 
     director of the EPA.
       As you consider the nomination of my friend Scott Pruitt, I 
     respectfully ask that you enter this letter into the record 
     so that I may attempt to clarify what I believe to be unfair 
     criticisms of the historic agreement negotiated between 
     myself on behalf of the State of Arkansas and Attorney 
     General Pruitt on behalf of the State of Oklahoma regarding 
     water quality in the Illinois River watershed.
       Prior to the elections of General Pruitt or myself, 
     Oklahoma grappled with Arkansas municipal water systems and 
     Arkansas industry, primarily poultry companies, over 
     increased phosphorous levels in the Illinois River watershed. 
     Pollution was substantially impacting the water quality in 
     one of Oklahoma's most scenic waterways. In 2003, an 
     agreement was executed that would require that the phosphorus 
     levels be reduced over the next 10 years to a level .037 
     parts per million. As a result, all parties on both sides of 
     the state line worked diligently to substantially improve the 
     water quality.
       At the same time, then-Oklahoma Attorney General Drew 
     Edmondson filed suit using an out of state plaintiffs' firm 
     against Arkansas's poultry industry. Many criticized the 
     litigation as taking the focus away from the environment and 
     placing it on money damages. The State of Oklahoma's outside 
     counsel presented their case to U.S. District Court Judge 
     Gregory Frizzell. Almost all the claims were dismissed by the 
     court. The evidence was fully submitted to the judge in March 
     of 2010 on the remaining question regarding injunctive 
     relief. To this day, no ruling in that litigation has been 
     handed down,
       As 2013, the ten-year deadline for the reduced phosphorus 
     levels, was approaching, two things were evident: 1.) despite 
     huge improvements in water quality, the phosphorus levels in 
     the river would not be at .037 parts per million before the 
     deadline, and 2.) research into the standard itself called 
     into question its origin and basis in hard science.
       The States of Arkansas and Oklahoma were facing a point of 
     litigating against one another (again) over this issue to the 
     detriment of all concerned, I approached General Pruitt to 
     ask if we could reach a solution that would protect the 
     environment and demonstrate to our citizens that we were 
     committed to working together on their behalf rather than 
     litigating against one another using taxpayer dollars for 
     lawyers instead of scientists.
       The resulting agreement reflects that Oklahoma enhanced, 
     not relaxed, its enforcement of environmental protections. 
     Scientists were appointed to establish the proper water 
     quality metrics, establish a binding standard, and at no time 
     were phosphorous

[[Page 2792]]

     abatement measures relaxed. It was an historic moment that 
     demonstrated that cooperation in pursuit of environmental 
     protection yielded better results than litigation. The 
     resulting report was recently released from the commission 
     and is available for your review, (See, www.ok.gov/
conservation/documents/IR%20 2016.12.19%20Final%20Report.pdf)
       Recent press accounts regarding these efforts unfairly 
     mischaracterize the work that was done by General Pruitt and 
     his team, He was a staunch defender of sound science and good 
     policy as appropriate tools to protect the environment of his 
     state. I saw firsthand how General Pruitt was able to bridge 
     political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach 
     an outcome that was heralded by most credible observers as 
     both positive and historic.
       As I am sure that this committee will have questions about 
     this matter, I wanted to take this opportunity to add facts 
     and context to an accomplishment that should stand as a 
     credit to General Pruitt's career and qualifications for this 
     nomination.
       I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to submit this 
     letter to you and to your committee and to be a part of the 
     record in these proceedings. I thank you for your service to 
     our nation,
           Respectfully submitted,
     Dustin McDaniel.
                                  ____

                                            Oklahoma Department of


                                        Wildlife Conservation,

                              Oklahoma City, OK, January 15, 2017.
     Re Debunking New York Times article, ``Scott Pruitt, Trump's 
         E.P.A. Pick, Backed Industry Donors Over Regulators,'' 
         January 14, 2017.

     Hon. John Barrasso,
     Chairman, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Tom Carper,
     Ranking Member, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public 
         Works, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: Rarely do 
     I feel compelled to respond to a newspaper article, 
     particularly one that runs in a nationally renowned news 
     outlet like the New York Times. I've learned over 23-years as 
     a State environmental regulator to value the media's role in 
     uncovering and exposing the truth, not to mention the wisdom 
     found in the quote, ``Never pick a fight with anyone who buys 
     ink by the barrel.'' However, the mistruths propagated by the 
     above captioned article undoubtedly caught the attention of 
     you, your fellow committee members, and many of your 
     respective constituents just days before Attorney General 
     Scott Pruitt's confirmation hearing for EPA Administrator, 
     and thus deserve a response from at least one of the 
     regulators that allegedly lost out to industry donors.
       First, it's worth noting that I spoke with the New York 
     Times for nearly fifteen minutes laying out the facts from my 
     perspective as Oklahoma's former Secretary of Environment and 
     a plaintiff in the state's litigation against the poultry 
     industry, then later as Director of the Oklahoma Water 
     Resources Board--the agency responsible for establishing the 
     phosphorus standard referenced in the article. One would 
     think such experience deserves significant play in an article 
     of this focus, yet more column space was devoted to a retired 
     employee of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality 
     who was incorrectly listed as the leader of the agency's 
     Water Quality Division and wrongfully given credit for being 
     responsible for ``overseeing the poultry-related cleanup.'' 
     The poultry industry and its related cleanup are governed by 
     our Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food & Forestry. 
     Rather than insinuating that Mr. Derichsweiler retired out of 
     frustration with General Pruitt, instead of the fact that he 
     retired after 40 years of service to the State, the New York 
     Times should have at least divulged that Derichsweiler 
     currently serves as Vice Chair of the Oklahoma Chapter of 
     Sierra Club, an organization that has launched a campaign to 
     oppose General Pruitt's confirmation.
       The facts that I shared in my interview with the New York 
     Times paint a completely different picture than the article 
     portrays. If I were writing the headline, it would read, 
     ``Pruitt Helps Deliver Water Quality Improvement in 
     Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers.'' At the end of the day, that has 
     been Oklahoma's goal in the Illinois River watershed for 
     decades, and that is what is happening during General 
     Pruitt's term as Attorney General. As I stated to the New 
     York Times, no State Attorney General can force a Federal 
     Judge to rule, or I'm certain former Attorney General Drew 
     Edmondson would have taken such action during his last two 
     years in office. Rather than beating his head against that 
     wall, Pruitt helped Oklahoma negotiate a new agreement with 
     the State of Arkansas that prompted not just a study of the 
     appropriate phosphorus level necessary to protect our shared 
     scenic rivers, which the article dismissed as trivial, but 
     more importantly provided for continued phosphorus controls 
     on wastewater and poultry facilities. For the first time in 
     my career, Oklahoma measured decreasing phosphorus levels and 
     water quality improvement in the Illinois River watershed 
     beginning in 2012. While many people on both sides of the 
     border deserve credit for this result, General Pruitt 
     definitely was a key player. This mere ``study'' ultimately 
     led to a recent agreement between the states of Arkansas and 
     Oklahoma wherein Arkansas committed to meet a more stringent 
     phosphorus standard--another shocking development for two 
     states that have quarreled for decades and quite the opposite 
     result one would expect from an Attorney General that is 
     being unfairly maligned as a shill for industry.
       Rather than spend several more pages contesting the 
     inaccuracies found in the New York Times article, I will 
     leave you with this overarching truth. As a fifth generation 
     Oklahoman and someone that has devoted my career to natural 
     resource protection, I take great pride in the progress that 
     has been made in improving Oklahoma's land, air, water and 
     wildlife resources. For the past six years, General Pruitt 
     has been instrumental in many of our successes and has never 
     asked me to compromise regulatory efforts to benefit 
     industry. On the contrary, all of our projects and cases that 
     involved his office were given staff support at the highest 
     level and, more often than not, resulted in more stringent 
     environmental protections, Please do not confuse Pruitt as 
     being anti-environment because of his well justified (and 
     strongly supported by me) efforts to counter the EPA's 
     various attempts to second-guess or usurp State authority. 
     Rather, he has been a strong ally in defending our ability to 
     continue the great progress that we've made in protecting 
     Oklahoma's environment at the state level--progress that is 
     too often impeded by Federal overreach and interference.
       If I can be of further assistance as you embark on your 
     important task of reviewing Mr. Pruitt's qualifications and 
     disposition to serve as EPA Administrator, please do not 
     hesitate to contact me. I've always found Mr. Pruitt to be a 
     man of great honesty and integrity, so you should have the 
     perfect opportunity in your hearing to gather facts before 
     making your final decision. If truth prevails, you will find 
     what most of us in Oklahoma know to be true: Scott Pruitt 
     stands for responsible, common sense, State-led environmental 
     protection efforts that generate positive results.
           Respectfully,
                                                      J.D. Strong,
     Director.
                                  ____


                            [Jan. 12, 2017]

A Firsthand Perspective From a Man in the Middle: Pruitt Nomination is 
                                Welcome

                              (By Ed Fite)

       We have all heard much yammering, left and right, about 
     President-elect Donald Trump having selected Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt as the next head of the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency. As a conservationist and 
     riverologist, I have worked firsthand with Scott Pruitt and 
     know a good deal more about him than those nationally that 
     are attempting to malign him.
       I have made it my life's work and my career to look after 
     our states designated Scenic Rivers. As a state employee and 
     a resource facilitator (I cannot take care of these valued-
     treasured water resources by myself), I always find myself 
     arguing for the middle ground, for the workable solution upon 
     which both sides of an issue can agree. I have looked and 
     worked for real solutions, and have implemented them with 
     help from all sides.
       I have found that General Pruitt has always done right by 
     our Scenic Rivers. He has done every constructive thing that 
     he told me he would do. Furthermore, for the first time ever, 
     he has gotten the State of Arkansas, which happens to have 
     portions of the streams we've designated as ``scenic rivers'' 
     originating in and flowing through their state, to agree to 
     Oklahoma's Scenic Rivers Phosphorus Standard--an incredible 
     environmental accomplishment, the impact of which cannot be 
     understated. Instead of engaging in years of inter-state 
     litigation, he did this by negotiating an agreement with 
     Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, a practical and 
     economical approach that will yield enormous environmental 
     benefits.
       To understand the magnitude of this agreement, one must 
     consider that Oklahoma and Arkansas have litigated over 
     Illinois River water quality for more than three decades. The 
     latest action brought by Oklahoma, about abating water 
     quality degradation from the land-application of poultry 
     waste in the Illinois River watershed, has languished for 
     more than six years in the federal district court. Many 
     thought that when General Pruitt took office he would abandon 
     this suit because he is also known for his staunch support of 
     farming and ranching communities. However, not only did 
     General Pruitt allow the case to be fully litigated, he 
     proactively sought this joint state solution to let science 
     determine the phosphorus standard for the Illinois River. In 
     the end, a study conducted by Baylor University reinforced 
     that the phosphorus standard Oklahoma sought to protect would 
     remain.
       Last, I have not seen him advocate dismantling the EPA. 
     Rather, he has rightfully supported necessary laws but has 
     challenged the agency when they have written new rules 
     without Congress having given them authority to do so. An 
     administrative agency

[[Page 2793]]

     should not decide what the law is in the absence of 
     legislation.
       And so, my middle-of-the-river view is that Scott Pruitt is 
     one who is committed to finding a balance that protects and 
     preserves our environment while at the same time affords an 
     opportunity for a robust economy to exist. Achievement of one 
     doesn't have to be exclusive of the other.

  Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I just want to follow up on the comments 
of my friend, the chairman from Wyoming, and I note that Scott Pruitt 
has responded to more questions than anyone in EPA history since Gina 
McCarthy, the past Administrator who responded to more than 1,400 
questions, and she actually responded to them completely, not evasively 
and not indirectly. She needed more time, given the volume of 
questions, and more time was granted so she might more fully answer the 
questions that were raised. I just wanted to add that if I could.
  Mr. President, I come to the floor to share with you and with our 
colleagues the reasons I oppose the nomination of Attorney General 
Scott Pruitt to be the EPA Administrator. Over the last month, we have 
had a number of President Trump's nominees come before the committee 
and be debated on the Senate floor, as you know.
  We have had multiple confirmation hearings in a single day, with 
Members running to and from hearings trying to learn more about 
nominees and get important questions answered. So I understand if some 
of my colleagues who have attended back-to-back hearings have not yet 
delved into Scott Pruitt's record as deeply as we have on the 
Environment and Public Works Committee, and that is why we are here 
today.
  As ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I, 
along with my colleagues on the committee, have scoured Mr. Pruitt's 
record to the best of our ability with the somewhat limited information 
the nominee has provided.
  We sat through his nomination hearing, where we asked him fundamental 
questions about his views on the role of the EPA and what he would do 
to protect our environment and public health. We submitted additional 
questions we had for the record and read through all of Mr. Pruitt's 
responses. We have done our due diligence with the information we 
received, and I want to share with my colleagues and all of those 
watching exactly why, based on this review, I cannot support Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination.
  First, I think it is important to revisit just why the EPA is still 
so critical. This Agency was created 46 years ago by a Republican 
President named Richard Nixon with the support of a bipartisan 
Congress. Their task was implementing our Nation's most important clean 
air, clean water, and safe chemical laws. The EPA is required to use 
sound science to protect both our environment and our public health, 
and, by and large, the EPA has done it successfully--not perfectly but 
successfully for decades while our economy has continued to grow. Many 
people may not remember a time before the EPA, a time when States had 
to work individually to protect citizens in the communities in which 
they lived, a time before the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act were 
signed into law, a time when businesses operating throughout the United 
States were faced with a myriad of conflicting State and local laws 
affecting our health and environment. The choking smog and soot of a 
half century ago seems unfathomable now. Rivers on fire and deadly 
toxic plumes sound like something almost for another world, impossible 
in our United States of America.
  Today we have the luxury of largely forgetting these frightening 
circumstances, thanks to the efforts of the EPA and its employees, in 
partnership with State and local governments and with countries and 
companies and businesses across America. The EPA and its many partners 
throughout the country have been so successful that it is easy for some 
of us to forget why this Agency is so critical. Some may presume there 
is not much more for this Agency to do. That could not be further from 
the truth.
  The environmental threats we face today are real. They don't respect 
State boundaries. Over time, my State of Delaware has made great 
strides in cleaning up our own air pollution, but our work only goes so 
far.
  In Delaware, like many States on the east coast, we sit at the end of 
what is known as America's tailpipe. Ninety percent of the pollution in 
Delaware comes from outside the First State, from plants hundreds of 
miles away in places like Kentucky, Ohio, my native West Virginia, 
Indiana, and throughout the Midwest.
  As Governor of Delaware, even if I had eliminated every source of air 
pollution within our State by stopping every combustion source and 
ordering every motor vehicle off our roads, Delawareans would still 
face deadly doses of air pollution. Should Delawareans be forced to 
live with consequences of decisions made by polluters hundreds or even 
thousands of miles away from us? I don't think so. I don't think so. 
That is not the Golden Rule I know.
  Fortunately, the EPA has recently implemented something called the 
good neighbor rule to make sure all States do their fair share to clean 
up our air. Every citizen in this country has a right to breathe clean 
air, regardless of where they live, whether they live in a downwind or 
an upwind State. That is why we have the EPA.
  We have known for decades that most of the mercury in our fish comes 
from air pollution that is emitted from the dirtiest coal plants and 
then settles in our waterways. We know mercury is a powerful neurotoxin 
that accumulates in our body over time, threatening the health of this 
generation and generations to come. The EPA recently issued public 
health protections to clean up the toxic air pollution from our 
dirtiest coal plants, allowing families in Danville, where I grew up 
alongside the Dan River, and thousands of other communities that can 
once again eat fish from our rivers, lakes, and streams without concern 
of mercury poisoning. That is why we have the EPA.
  Too often, when States and local communities are pinched for cash, 
they try to save money by shortchanging clean air and water 
protections. Improvements to infrastructure are often ignored, corners 
are cut, and solutions are adopted that may save dollars now but 
inflict costly unnecessary damage later.
  As we have seen most recently in the city of Flint, MI, these cuts 
can have a terrible and even tragic impact on the health of the most 
vulnerable in our society, especially on the youngest among us. Today, 
the citizens of Flint still lack clean drinking water, and a new 
generation in that city which has been exposed to high levels of lead 
faces an uncertain future. That is why we have the EPA.
  Many people don't know it, but Delaware is the lowest lying State in 
our Nation. The highest point in the State of Delaware is a bridge. 
Back home, the reality that our climate is changing is not up for 
debate. Families and business owners face the stark realities of 
climate change almost every single day. Tackling that challenge is not 
just the right thing to do or what is best for Delaware's economy, it 
is a matter of survival. Our little State alone cannot stem the flow of 
greenhouse gases into our atmosphere that is largely causing our 
climate to change, our seas to rise, and our coastlines to retreat. 
Every State--every State--must do its fair share to safeguard our 
climate and their neighbors. That is why we have the EPA.
  Examples of the air and water pollution produced by one State and 
fouling the air and water of others can still be found in too many 
parts of America, like the runoff from Pennsylvania that degrades the 
waters of the Chesapeake Bay or the haze exported from other States 
that oftentimes shrouds the Smoky Mountains and degrades visibility at 
the Grand Canyon. That is why we have the EPA.
  Throughout my years in the Senate and as a member of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee, I have had the opportunity to consider the 
credentials of five different nominees to serve as EPA Administrator--
individuals put forth by both Democratic

[[Page 2794]]

and Republican Presidents. I have supported candidates in the past 
because they were able to clearly demonstrate their commitment--
candidates like former New Jersey Republican Governor Christine Whitman 
and former Utah Governor Mike Leavitt. I was proud to support them 
both, proud of their service, and proud of their role as head of EPA. 
But I have supported candidates like them because they clearly 
demonstrated their commitment to advancing the mission of the EPA--the 
mission to protect human health and to protect our environment. Never 
have I been forced to consider a candidate to lead the EPA who has been 
so focused throughout his career on crippling the Agency he now seeks 
to lead or so hostile to the basic protections to keep Americans and 
our environment safe.
  So, with that, I am going to close, and I will come back many times 
in the hours to come as we continue the consideration of this 
candidate's nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kennedy). The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. President, I am here to address an issue that I 
think is of great importance to this country and to this 
administration; that is, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the new 
EPA Administrator.
  We are nearly 8 years removed now from what we consider--many of us, 
I think, particularly as we look back--the great recession. However, 
many American workers, their families, and their communities have yet 
to feel the benefits of any kind of a recovery. A key component to a 
slow recovery--the slowest recovery since World War I--is the 
regulatory overreach coming out of this city--Washington, DC.
  Since the end of the recession in June 2009, Federal agencies have 
burdened a weakened economy with thousands of pages of new rules, 
costing consumers billions of dollars. Tens of thousands of workers 
have lost their jobs. The EPA has perhaps become the poster child for 
this overreach, from restricting carbon emissions without the direction 
of Congress--and according to the clean air direction of Congress of 
what is important--to federalizing every stream, every pond, every 
wetland under the waters of the United States rule, to unilaterally 
banning virtually Appalachian coal mining by obstructing the permitting 
process and pursuing ozone standards that the vast majority of the 
country cannot meet. The vast majority of the country is still trying 
to meet the ozone standards that were established under the last 
regulation.
  I support the mission of the EPA in protecting human health, in 
protecting our air and our water, but there has to be a balance. There 
has to be a balance between growing the economy and preserving the 
environment. Over the last several years, we have seen that balance 
very disrupted. This disruption is at odds with the law and the well-
being of many of our working families.
  This has been acutely felt in my State of West Virginia where we have 
lost more than 35 percent of our coal jobs since the year 2011. That is 
more than 7,000 jobs eliminated in a relatively small State like West 
Virginia, and many of these jobs are very high-paying jobs.
  As a nation, we have lost more than 60,000 coal miners in the same 
timeframe. This has hurt our workers, our families, our communities, 
and our State.
  The loss of good-paying jobs means less commercial activity. It means 
less tax revenue to support our education, our county school systems, 
our county ambulances, our county sheriff's departments, and our law 
enforcement. For example, little old Wayne County in West Virginia has 
lost 88 percent of its coal severance taxes between 2013 and 2016. This 
year, our Governor and our legislature are struggling right now with a 
$500 million budget deficit, largely due to the loss of our coal jobs.
  Patching that shortfall could mean significant tax increases, painful 
cuts in public services, or both, which could further hurt and cripple 
our local economy. It will be a long road undoing the legal and 
economic damages suffered over the last several years.
  Voters in my State and across the country have made it clear that 
fixing Washington includes meaningful reforms for the way that the EPA 
operates and has been operating.
  So what do we have before us? We have a great nominee for EPA 
Administrator, Scott Pruitt, who is presently the attorney general of 
another energy-producing State--Oklahoma. Scott is committed to 
returning the Agency to its core mission of protecting our air, our 
water, and our land without undercutting the economy. At least, we know 
that he will listen to the other side and try to be reasonable.
  He will ensure that the EPA abides by congressional intent, and he 
will be an active partner with State and local stakeholders in the 
rulemaking process.
  Going back to the stream buffer rule and the reason that fell apart--
and I am so pleased that the President is going to be signing the CRA 
on that today--the EPA invited States to come in and speak about the 
rulemaking process. Within months, it became very apparent to the 
States that are charged with protecting the water that this is just 
window dressing. They realized: They are not listening to us, and they 
don't really want us to buy in. Eight of those States left.
  So as the attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, he has held 
industry to account as well protected lakes and streams in his State. I 
asked him in the committee: If the State or local government doesn't 
intervene in what looks to be an environmental issue--not just a 
crisis, but if they are not doing their job in protecting the air and 
the water--what would you do as the EPA Administrator? He said: That is 
where we should be stepping in. That is where we should be helping 
those States meet those standards, helping those States get the right 
information.
  So I think he is going to be unafraid to take on the EPA when it is 
set to ignore a State's sovereignty.
  Mr. Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted candidate for this position 
in history. He fielded 6 hours' worth of questioning before the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, where I serve. During that 
hearing, he assured me that he will engage directly with the State of 
West Virginia and visit our State. We could never get the EPA 
Administrator to visit our State and listen to our side. He will visit 
our State, listen to our side, and reform the rulemaking process to 
prevent another open assault on our economy by unelected bureaucrats.
  He also committed to me that he would pursue full implementation of 
the bipartisan Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century 
Act, a bill on which we joined together--Republicans and Democrats, 
both sides of the aisle, with President Obama--to modernize our toxic 
chemical regulations in terms of water.
  This is important to me. I was talking to my colleague from Michigan 
about this issue. We had a water crisis in West Virginia where we had a 
large chemical spill. This bill, under Scott Pruitt's leadership and my 
pressing for the implementation, as others will be, will help us in 
situations like this.
  Beyond the over 200 questions he answered in the hearing, he answered 
more than 1,000 followup questions. He is the most thoroughly vetted 
nominee for Administrator in the history of the EPA. I am confident--
very confident--as he assured me in committee and in personal meetings, 
and I have watched him in action in terms of questioning the overreach 
in the court systems. He has worked with our attorney general, Patrick 
Morrisey, to be the leader in this.
  I have confidence that he embodies the leadership that we need to 
restore the balance and accountability to the EPA in a way that will 
benefit the public health and benefit environmental preservation, as 
well as restore much-needed economic growth that needs to be a part of 
the balance that we want to see restored back to the EPA.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, let me say first that I join with the 
distinguished Senator from West Virginia in

[[Page 2795]]

expressing concern about our water infrastructure and water issues. As 
many of us know, we have had terrific challenges in Flint, MI, with an 
entire water system being unable to be used because of lead poisoning 
and the terrible decisions made, primarily at the State level.
  I was very concerned--when I speak about Mr. Pruitt and his 
nomination--that when asked by Senator Cardin if he believes there is 
any safe level of lead that can be taken into the human body, 
particularly a young person, he said that this is something he hasn't 
reviewed and doesn't know anything about. That is deeply concerning to 
me--that the person who would be heading the EPA would not know 
anything about lead poisoning and what that means, first of all, in a 
child's body, where it is poisoned and affects their development 
throughout their life. It is critically important for us in Michigan--
and there are many, many places where there are serious water quality 
issues that need to be addressed--that we have someone who understands 
the science and the need for clean water rules and protecting our 
waters so that any family, any community can have the confidence of 
turning on the faucet and knowing that there is going to be clean water 
coming out into their sink in their home. It is very concerning to me 
that we have a nominee who indicated that he really didn't know 
anything about this issue.
  So for that and a number of reasons--many, many reasons--I am joining 
with so many colleagues in opposing Scott Pruitt to be the next 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA Administrator is a very important position. As I indicated, 
to those of us in Michigan, surrounded by the beauty of the Great 
Lakes, having the responsibility for protecting the Great Lakes, this 
is a very, very important position.
  After examining Mr. Pruitt's record on a broad range of issues, as 
well as his views about the Agency he has been nominated to lead, I 
have significant concerns about the direction and the priorities the 
EPA would take if he becomes Administrator.
  Now, this is not based on partisan politics. When George W. Bush was 
President, I joined 98 of my colleagues to vote to confirm Christie 
Todd Whitman to be EPA Administrator. Two years later, I was among 87 
other Members of the Senate to vote to confirm Michael Leavitt to 
succeed her at the EPA.
  But the facts are--the evidence is--that Scott Pruitt does not have 
the requisite experience and track record to successfully lead an 
Agency that plays such a critical role in protecting the health and the 
well-being of the American people, and, certainly, the people that I 
represent in the great State of Michigan.
  As I mentioned before, we are very, very familiar with the importance 
of clean water and the consequences of environmental mismanagement. We 
need an EPA that will act quickly when there is a crisis like the one 
that happened in Flint, which is, unfortunately, still going on. This 
was a manmade crisis inflicted by the State of Michigan's actions on a 
number of different levels that created a situation where the State 
would rather save $100 a day than treat the water for lead corrosion. 
So $100 a day they wanted to save rather than treat the water to 
prevent children and families from being exposed to lead-tainted water. 
This was a State decision.
  Mr. Pruitt has made it clear that it is his intention to defer as 
much as possible to States--to States like Michigan, which didn't treat 
the water, then didn't tell the truth, then covered it up, and still 
has not done--despite Congress and the President together acting to 
support that community, the State still has not stepped up to meet 
their responsibilities. After more than 2 years, people still cannot 
turn on the faucet and have confidence that they are going to have 
clean water. Yet Mr. Pruitt says the State ought to be the one making 
these decisions.
  While I firmly believe an effective EPA is one that works closely and 
often in concert with State and local communities, we must also be sure 
we have leadership at the EPA that is willing and capable of providing 
the oversight necessary to ensure environmental and public health 
standards.
  We also need an EPA Administrator whom we can trust to protect and 
preserve our amazing Great Lakes. Critical to this objective is a grant 
program administered by the EPA called Great Lakes Restoration 
Initiative. I was very pleased to champion and help launch this in 2010 
with strong support from the Obama administration. This accelerates 
efforts to protect and restore the Great Lakes by providing grants to 
clean up contaminated areas; prevent and control invasive species, 
things like Asian carp, which we are constantly having to focus on to 
push back these fish from destroying our fisheries and boating 
operations and environments in the Great Lakes; to address harmful 
algae blooms and restore habitat; and to protect native species.
  Scott Pruitt's long record of opposing nearly all Federal 
environmental programs raises serious questions to me about his 
commitment to the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and all of the 
efforts we have worked on in a bipartisan, bicameral way to make sure 
we are protecting 20 percent of the world's freshwater, 30 million 
people's drinking water, and a huge economic engine called the Great 
Lakes.
  I always like to say the Great Lakes are in our DNA, and that is very 
true for all of us who live in Michigan and certainly around the Great 
Lakes because we understand that this great natural resource supports 
more than 1.5 million jobs and nearly $62 billion in wages tied to jobs 
and industries, and, frankly, it reflects our wonderful quality of life 
in Michigan.
  I also have great concerns about Mr. Pruitt's long-running opposition 
to the landmark renewable fuel standard, which puts him at odds with 
the Agency that administers the program. The President promised us a 
farmer-friendly EPA. Yet this nominee to lead the Agency wants to 
dismantle one of the most successful economic drivers in rural America. 
Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly spoken out against the renewable fuel 
standard, calling the program flawed and unworkable.
  Mr. Pruitt heading up EPA, coupled with former ExxonMobil executive 
Rex Tillerson at the State Department and oil refinery owner Carl Icahn 
advising the White House, may well be the end of the RFS as we know it. 
That is, frankly, bad news for biofuels producers in Michigan, bad news 
for Americans who care about creating economic growth and jobs in rural 
communities, and bad news for small towns and communities throughout 
Michigan. Mr. Pruitt's record of siding with polluters over sound 
science puts him outside the mainstream of what we should expect from 
our EPA Administrator.
  It is for these reasons that I intend to vote against his nomination, 
and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I also rise to oppose the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator.
  To summarize--and then I will go into some detail--Virginians are 
pro-science people. The political figure we most venerate is still 
Thomas Jefferson, who was the preeminent scientist of his day. We are 
pro-science people. Second, the evidence from Mr. Pruitt's career 
demonstrates he is anti-science in the climate area and possibly 
others. Third, there is no position in the Federal Government that more 
relies upon accurate science and scientistic judgement than EPA 
Administrator.
  I think the President is afforded significant discretion in 
appointing members of the Cabinet, and I have voted to confirm a number 
of President Trump's nominees even if I wouldn't have nominated them 
myself because I think they meet the basic test of competence and 
integrity. But I have voted against individuals if they can't satisfy 
me that they meet our ethical standards or that they are qualified for 
the position or that they are able to do the job fairly and 
objectively.
  The ability of the EPA Administrator to do this job fairly and 
objectively requires an acknowledgement of

[[Page 2796]]

the scientific reality of climate change and other science. This isn't 
an abstract matter for Virginia, and it is not an abstract matter for 
the EPA Administrator.
  Next only to coastal Louisiana, Virginia is the most susceptible 
State to sea level rise. Hampton Roads, VA, with 1.6 million people--
our second largest metropolitan area--not only is it a busy and 
thriving metropolitan area, but it is the center of American naval 
power and the largest base of naval operations in the world. It is the 
homeport for the U.S. Atlantic fleet. What we are seeing throughout 
Hampton Roads, VA, is that neighborhoods where you could sell and buy a 
house 15 years ago, you now can't because normal tidal action renders 
the homes impossible to sell. It affects businesses.
  By 2040, the main road into the largest naval base in the world, 
Norfolk, will be covered 2 to 3 hours a day just by normal tidal 
action, not by storm surges, which make it more significant. So now the 
cities of Norfolk, Virginia Beach, Portsmouth, Suffolk, Chesapeake, 
Newport News, and Hampton are all trying to figure out ways to make 
resiliency investments to protect against sea level rise, and the 
Department of Defense is having to contemplate the same kinds of 
investments to protect our naval operations in Hampton Roads.
  The EPA's mission and its entire existence revolve around science. To 
enforce the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act, to set limits on 
pollutants that are stringent enough to have measurable benefits but 
reasonable enough to avoid negative economic impacts to the degree we 
can, and to pore over reams and reams of data and analysis and figure 
out whether a chemical in a consumer product is harmful takes science. 
To analyze whether fracking or some other method of extracting energy 
is dangerous to drinking water or not dangerous or somewhere in the 
middle or what the right limits should be takes science.
  In an earlier iteration, I was the mayor of Richmond. My city has a 
river in the middle of it that was so polluted--the James River--you 
couldn't swim in it and you couldn't fish in it. There was no bird life 
in it because it had been polluted over such a long time. Today, go to 
Richmond, VA, and you will see people canoeing and kayaking. You will 
see people fishing and taking the fish home to eat. You will see people 
swimming. It has gone from the sewer of our city to the front yard of 
our city, to the thing that has helped bring population back into 
downtown Richmond and grow our population, and it happened because of 
the Clean Water Act.
  There is always a question in regulation--too hot, too cold, or just 
right. But my city would not be what it is today had there not been a 
Clean Water Act that required us--in some ways that were painful at 
times--to save the river, and now it has herons, bald eagles, fish, 
kayakers, and canoeists, and everybody's quality of life and the 
economy are better too.
  Mr. Pruitt has been asked repeatedly about his views on climate 
science. Just 4 months ago, he stated:

       We've done a lot [in reducing carbon emissions], and that's 
     not even addressing, guys, the fact that there's a tremendous 
     dispute, as you know, that's going on in the marketplace 
     about how much this global warming trend that the [Obama] 
     administration talks about, if it's true or not.
       Is it truly man-made and is this simply just another period 
     of time where the Earth is cooling, increasing in heat? I 
     mean is it just typical natural type of occurrences as 
     opposed to what the Administration says?

  That was just 4 months ago. This kind of skepticism--we don't know 
whether humans cause it; we don't know whether it is natural--is 
exactly the kind of thing we have seen in Congress before. There was a 
famous hearing in Congress that was sort of emblazoned on people's 
memories of a whole bunch of witnesses standing up and swearing to tell 
the truth and saying: We don't know that there is a connection between 
cigarette smoking and cancer. This kind of denial of the scientific 
consensus from an Administrator of the chief agency that needs science 
in this country is deeply troubling.
  I don't think it should be going out on a limb to declare that 
climate change is happening, driven largely by the burning of fossil 
fuels, and is a problem we have to deal with in some way. How to deal 
with it, how quickly to deal with it--those are tough questions, but 
acknowledging the science should not be tough.
  That acknowledgement of the science was the policy of a predecessor 
of mine, Virginia Senator John Warner, a Republican, who introduced one 
of the first climate bills in Congress with Democratic Senator Joe 
Lieberman in 2006. This policy that we recognize science was the policy 
of the George H.W. Bush administration, which negotiated the U.N. 
Framework Convention on Climate Change more than 25 years ago. It was 
the policy that underlay the Presidential campaign of one of our 
colleagues, Senator John McCain, in 2008.
  Acknowledging the science of climate change isn't a matter of 
political views; it is a matter of science and reality. We can discuss 
and debate what to do about it, and I think those are challenging 
discussions to have. That is fair game. Differences of opinion about 
what to do about--that is fair game. But denying an overwhelming 
scientific consensus that climate change exists and that it is driven 
by human activity in the burning of fossil fuels--something ExxonMobil 
scientists were agreeing to in papers written in the 1980s, not 4 
months ago--denying that is a denial of science.
  I worry. If Mr. Pruitt denies science on this matter, what other 
science will he deny? His record as attorney general in Oklahoma bears 
me out on my worry to some degree. In virtually every decision, the 
attorney general's office defended the interests of oil and gas, of Big 
Agribusiness, and basically the interests of polluters against the 
interests of clean air and water, which are the interests of our 
families and our kids.
  A New York Times article from 2 years ago--before Mr. Pruitt was 
nominated for this position--identified that when the EPA was looking 
at the potential impacts--potential, not guaranteed; we are trying to 
determine if there are impacts--of fracking on water quality and 
seismic instability, Attorney General Pruitt submitted comments on 
behalf of the State of Oklahoma that expressed skepticism that fracking 
was causing any problems. Well, why not do the investigation? Why not 
get to the bottom of it? Was the opinion that he expressed backed by 
science? Was it backed by a deep analysis that had been done by 
scientists or smart attorneys in Mr. Pruitt's office? No. In this 
instance, good investigative journalism determined that the comment 
expressing skepticism about fracking having any effect on water quality 
was actually written by an energy company, copied, and pasted onto 
official Oklahoma letterhead and submitted to the EPA as representing 
the views of Oklahoma public officials.
  Would it be appropriate for the attorney general of Oklahoma--a State 
that has significant oil and gas--to take into account the views of oil 
and gas producers on something as important as fracking? Absolutely. In 
fact, you would not be doing your job if you didn't take the views of 
those companies into account. But considering industry views is very 
different from taking their views and portraying them as coming from 
you, a holder of a public trust who is supposed to be working for 
everybody and not just one company or one industry.
  Here is one more example I will give before I conclude, because I 
take it personally. Virginia is one of the six States in the Chesapeake 
Bay watershed. I worked on this matter as Governor of Virginia, along 
with colleagues in the other States and the District of Columbia, and 
we worked together with the EPA on how to clean up the bay. This is a 
treasured resource for Virginians. It is about as bipartisan a thing as 
there is in Virginia. Probably next to support for veterans, support 
for the Chesapeake Bay would be a close second in bipartisanship. As 
public officials, we worked out with the EPA a strategy we thought 
would be

[[Page 2797]]

conducive to cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay--which is not just about 
enjoyment, not just about water quality, but also about traditional 
Virginia industries, like watermen's industry tourism, which is a big 
industry in our State.
  We worked it out to our satisfaction, but when we did, there was a 
lawsuit filed against this particular regulation by the Farm Bureau. 
The attorney general of Oklahoma--not one of the six States in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed--the attorney general of Oklahoma intervened 
and filed a friend-of-the-court brief to try to strike down the 
regulation that the EPA and Virginia officials had worked on in tandem 
for the good of the Chesapeake Bay, for the good of our Commonwealth, 
for the good of our citizens.
  I contend: Why would an attorney general in Oklahoma care so much 
about a Chesapeake Bay rule that we had worked out together? I contend 
that he and some other attorneys general who joined in this were 
worried that if the EPA succeeded, then the EPA might try something in 
other large watersheds, including those in their States.
  The matter did go to the Federal appellate court. The Federal 
appellate court upheld the Chesapeake Bay plan. The attorneys general 
and others tried to take it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court 
wouldn't take the appeal, and so the Chesapeake Bay plan is in 
operation. We were all struck about why an Oklahoma attorney general 
would be going after something affecting the Commonwealth of Virginia, 
and there is a point there.
  The point was this. EPA scientists working in tandem with State 
officials had analyzed the water quality in the bay, and they had 
followed the State's progress, or lack thereof, over time, and they 
finally said, again, working in tandem with many of us: The pollution 
levels are so bad that we are never going to return the bay to what it 
can be unless we need to take action.
  It was that scientific consensus that Mr. Pruitt as attorney general 
of Oklahoma was challenging. Science is the pursuit of truth. Science 
is supposed to follow where the facts lead, no matter what the 
scientist's initial views might be.
  Mr. Pruitt's record does not tell me he will follow the data wherever 
it leads. It tells me that whenever there is a menu of options, he is 
going to take the option that is most beneficial to polluters rather 
than beneficial to public health.
  I will conclude with the point at which I started. There is no 
Federal agency that needs to have somebody who accepts science and 
scientific consensus more than the EPA. It matters deeply to Virginia, 
but I don't think Virginians are unique to this. I think it matters to 
the citizens of 50 States.
  EPA regulations are not all wise, and some need to be dialed back. I 
have seen the positive effects of wise EPA regulations in my city and 
in my State. I am going to vote no on Mr. Pruitt because I don't 
believe his first duty will be to follow science and enforce just laws 
and regulations, appropriately governing the water we drink and the air 
we breathe.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                              Gun Violence

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise again to speak about the epidemic 
of gun violence in the city of Chicago and across America.
  The American Medical Association has declared gun violence as a 
public health crisis in America. Every day, almost 300 men, women, and 
children are shot in this Nation. Gun violence touches every American 
community, but no community has suffered more than the city of Chicago.
  I am honored to represent that city. I love it, and I think it is a 
great city. I spend a lot of time there to get to know the people who 
were born there and live their lives there and call it home. It is a 
great honor to call it part of my State that I am honored to represent.
  The stories that are coming out of the city of Chicago are 
heartbreaking stories--and none worse than this week. This week there 
was a slaughter of the innocents. In a 4-day period earlier this week, 
three beautiful children under the age of 12 were fatally shot.
  On Saturday night, 11-year-old Takiya Holmes, sitting in her mom's 
car, was shot in the head and killed. A 19-year-old suspect in custody 
has been charged. He reported that he was shooting from across the 
street at rival gang members, and a stray bullet hit Takiya. She died 
on Tuesday morning.
  On Saturday, 12-year-old Kanari Gentry-Bowers was shot while playing 
basketball in the West Englewood neighborhood. She passed away just 
yesterday.
  On Tuesday at 1:30 in the afternoon, 2-year-old Lavontay White was 
shot and killed while sitting in the car with his pregnant aunt and 
uncle. Lavontay's uncle was also killed. His aunt was wounded.
  These shootings are senseless, devastating, and heartbreaking. 
Already this year there have been over 400 shootings in Chicago--so far 
this year. That is after there were more than 4,300 shootings last 
year.
  My thoughts and prayers, of course, go to the victims and their 
families. I have attended so many marches and parades, funerals, and 
memorial services. But thoughts and prayers are not enough. We need to 
do something to reduce this epidemic of gun violence. There have been 
too many funerals, too many families who have lost that baby they 
loved, too many children who suffered the physical and mental trauma of 
gunshot wounds and witnessing violence. Many of these shootings could 
have been prevented, but it is going to take changes in our laws and 
changes in our attitude for that to happen.
  We have absurd loopholes in our gun laws that make it easy for 
dangerous people to get their hands on guns. We have obvious gaps in 
our gun background check system. We have inadequate Federal laws to 
stop gun trafficking and straw purchases of guns. These factors allow a 
flood of illicit guns to come into Chicago from other towns and States, 
from gun shows in neighboring States where there is no background 
check. These drug gangs drive over to these locations and fill up the 
trunks of their cars with guns to take them and sell them in the 
neighborhoods to kids who shoot and kill one another day in and day 
out.
  We have gun dealers--federally licensed gun dealers--who look the 
other way when someone comes in to make a straw purchase. That is the 
purchase of a gun that the purchaser is not going to use but is going 
to give it to somebody who is prohibited from buying a gun.
  In light of the epidemic of gun violence in our country, Congress 
should be working around the clock to fix these gaps in our Federal 
law. But the Republican-controlled Senate is doing nothing to address 
gun violence in Chicago or anywhere else. Instead, look at what we just 
did yesterday. Just yesterday, this Senate, on this floor, voted to 
weaken the gun background check system instead of strengthening it. It 
is hard to understand how the Republican Party can have its priorities 
so wrong when it comes to gun violence.
  We can respect Second Amendment rights of individuals. We can respect 
the rights of people to own a gun for self-defense, for sporting and 
hunting purposes. I have gone hunting. I have used a firearm. I 
complied with every law in the books, all of them. The hunters who were 
with me did too.
  Why is it so hard to ask before we sell a gun to someone whether they 
have a criminal record, whether they are buying it for another person 
who might have a criminal record, or whether they have a history of 
mental instability, which would disqualify them from owning a gun?
  We are facing a crisis in Chicago and across the Nation because of 
this violence. We in Congress have a responsibility to do everything we 
can at the Federal level to protect our constituents, our neighbors, 
from getting shot. We can't ignore this responsibility, and we 
certainly shouldn't be weakening gun laws as the Senate did yesterday.
  We also need the Federal Government to be an engaged partner with 
cities like Chicago to help reduce violence and expand economic options 
in

[[Page 2798]]

depressed neighborhoods. You can pick out three neighborhoods in the 
city of Chicago that account for almost 50 percent of gun violence--
three neighborhoods. I visited some of them. They warned me: Don't get 
out of the car. They are right. Random gunfire is a reality of life in 
those neighborhoods. We know where they are. We know where the shooters 
live. We know where the victims are. We can do more.
  President Trump sends out a lot of tweets. He likes to tweet about 
Chicago, and I am not quite sure why. Tweeting doesn't save lives. 
Saying that you are going to send in the Feds may be one of those short 
tweets that is catchy, but it doesn't mean a damned thing to the people 
who are being shot and are dying in the city of Chicago.
  Last week I joined my colleague Senator Tammy Duckworth, and we sent 
a letter to the President asking him to do more than tweet when it 
comes to Chicago.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                         United States Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 10, 2017.
     President Donald J. Trump,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear President Trump: During the 2016 presidential campaign 
     and in numerous tweets and comments since the election, you 
     have lamented the recent surge of gun violence in Chicago and 
     said the federal government could help stop the violence. 
     While the level of shootings and homicides is clearly 
     unacceptable, tweeting alone will not fix it. Tweeting does 
     not break cycles of violence; tweeting does not help lift 
     people out of poverty; tweeting does not save lives. We urge 
     you instead to provide a surge in federal support and 
     resources for Chicago to reduce violence and expand economic 
     opportunities for neglected communities.
       Public safety is primarily a local responsibility, but the 
     federal government must be an engaged partner in public 
     safety efforts alongside local officials, law enforcement, 
     and community stakeholders. There is much the federal 
     government can do to help.
       Instead of tweeting, you could begin by directing your 
     Administration to enhance U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) 
     programs that improve community policing, such as the COPS 
     Hiring Program to help local police departments put more cops 
     on the beat, and the Byrne-JAG grant program to enable local 
     law enforcement to purchase or upgrade equipment. We note 
     that in his first year in office, President Obama pushed for 
     a surge in COPS and Byrne-JAG funding through the Recovery 
     Act and the appropriations process that provided Chicago with 
     $13.256 million in COPS Hiring funding and $35.637 million in 
     Byrne-JAG finding. This is more than four times the amount of 
     COPS funding and 15 times the amount of Byrne-JAG funding 
     that the City received last year. You could push for a 
     similar funding surge.
       We also urge you to direct DOJ to promote mentoring and job 
     training programs for youth and the formerly incarcerated. We 
     are ready to work with you to strengthen the Office of 
     Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to improve 
     mentoring and violence prevention initiatives and to boost 
     funding for recidivism reduction programs under the federal 
     Second Chance Act. We urge you to direct DOJ to abide by its 
     commitment to help implement policing reforms recommended by 
     the Department's Civil Rights Division. We also request your 
     support for legislation to close gaps in the FBI gun 
     background check system and in federal firearm laws that 
     enable straw purchasers and gun traffickers to flood 
     Chicago's streets with illicit guns.
       Federal efforts must also transcend law enforcement and 
     criminal justice programs to focus on causal factors, 
     including the lack of economic opportunity. We urge the U.S. 
     Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Labor to 
     prioritize important career and youth training programs that, 
     if properly funded and expanded, would address the role that 
     poverty plays in the violence epidemic facing Chicago and 
     other communities around the country.
       Before you send your next tweet, you could request a surge 
     in additional federal resources for these public safety and 
     economic development efforts in Chicago. But so far, your 
     Administration has refused to commit to spend any additional 
     resources to combat Chicago's violence and has actually 
     threatened to cut federal funds for the City. Now is not the 
     time for the federal government to abandon its support for 
     Chicago and its people.
       This week, you reportedly attributed Chicago's crime 
     situation to the presence of undocumented immigrants. This 
     coincides with your January 25 executive order that makes up 
     to eight million immigrants priorities for deportation and 
     seeks to create a mass deportation force by tripling the 
     number of immigration agents. The vast majority of immigrants 
     in our country are peaceful and have strong family values, 
     and studies have shown that immigrants are less likely to 
     commit serious crimes than native-born individuals. We are 
     aware of no evidence that undocumented immigrants are 
     responsible for any significant proportion of the murders in 
     Chicago, and claims otherwise do nothing but distract from 
     efforts to meaningfully reduce the City's recent increase in 
     violence.
       We note that you have urged Congress to fund the 
     construction of a wall on the Southern border that would 
     reportedly cost at least $21.6 billion, even though the wall 
     would not fix our broken immigration system and even though 
     Republican Congressman Will Hurd, whose district covers 800 
     miles of the border, has said ``building a wall is the most 
     expensive and least effective way to secure the border.'' If 
     your Administration were to take even one percent of this 
     funding and devote the resources instead to help Chicago's 
     public safety efforts, it would make a dramatic difference in 
     reducing Chicago's violence. We urge you to reprioritize 
     federal resources that you would request for wall 
     construction and commit those resources instead to reducing 
     gun violence in Chicago and other violence-prevention efforts 
     around the nation. Doing so could save many more lives than 
     tweeting.
       Thank you for your consideration on this important issue.
           Sincerely,
     Richard J. Durbin,
       U.S. Senator.
     Tammy Duckworth,
       U.S. Senator.

  Mr. DURBIN. We asked the President to put his twitter account down 
for a few minutes and instead direct his Department of Justice to 
enhance programs that improve community policing, such as COPS and the 
Byrne-JAG grants. We asked him to provide a surge in these programs, 
just like President Obama did in his first year through the Recovery 
Act and the appropriations process.
  We also asked the President to direct the Justice Department to 
promote mentoring and job training programs. I want peace on the 
streets of Chicago and every American city, and I know that one of the 
keys to this is the belief that there is a chance in this economy for 
you and your family.
  We need to have mentoring and job training programs for young people 
through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and 
for former incarcerated persons through the Federal Second Chance Act.
  We asked the President to support policing reforms recommended by the 
Justice Department in Washington. We asked him to support our efforts 
to close the gaps in Federal gun laws.
  There is no denying that poverty plays a role in fueling violence and 
in violating justice. We asked the President, also, to prioritize 
funding for jobs programs under the Departments of Labor and Education. 
These are concrete steps that would help reduce violence in Chicago.
  So far, President Trump's administration has not committed any 
additional resources to combatting Chicago's violence. Mayor Emanuel 
was here a few days ago to meet with the Department of Justice and to 
make the same plea. The administration instead is threatening to cut 
funding, on top of the devastating funding cuts we have already seen in 
Illinois under our current Governor.
  Now is not the time for the Federal Government to abandon support for 
the families living in this great city. I urge the President and his 
administration to reprioritize Federal resources to reduce gun violence 
in Chicago and around the Nation. It is going to save a lot more lives 
than tweeting.
  If you will not do it for two Democratic Senators, do it for these 
families. Do it for the moms and the relatives who are now planning the 
funeral services of these babies who were gunned down in the city of 
Chicago this week.
  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. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROUNDS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss Mr. Trump's nominee to 
be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental

[[Page 2799]]

Protection Agency, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt.
  His background with the EPA regulatory process makes him well suited 
to lead this Agency. He has an in-depth understanding of the impact 
regulations have on landowners, American businesses and State and local 
governments. As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has been a leader in 
standing up for the rights of State governments in the face of an 
aggressive EPA that has imposed increasingly costly and burdensome 
regulations on the States.
  During his time as the attorney general, Mr. Pruitt established 
Oklahoma's first Federalism Unit in the Office of Solicitor General to 
more effectively combat unwarranted regulation and overreach by Federal 
agencies. General Pruitt is a strong believer in federalism and States' 
rights, which have been often overlooked by the previous 
administration, often to the detriment of the U.S. economy and our 
environment.
  I am hopeful Attorney General Pruitt will take steps to improve the 
Federal regulatory process to make certain Federal regulations are 
promulgated with adequate public participation, underpinned by the best 
scientific evidence available and in a transparent and open manner. 
Attorney General Pruitt understands the importance of taking 
stakeholder, State, and local government comments and expertise into 
account when promulgating regulations. He understands that listening to 
and considering the differing viewpoints of stakeholders will improve 
the regulatory process and lead to better regulations. This will lead 
to fewer burdensome and costly regulations for South Dakota farmers, 
ranchers, and landowners, while at the same time making certain we have 
clean air and clean water.
  The Obama EPA's process for considering scientific information was 
flawed and unbalanced. There was a lack of balanced opinion, geographic 
diversity in State, local, and tribal representation on EPA's Science 
Advisory Board, which is tasked with providing scientific advice to the 
EPA. Attorney General Pruitt understands the importance of relying on 
the most up-to-date science to underpin environmental regulations.
  During his confirmation hearing, he affirmed to me that he would 
uphold his obligations to use the most current, accurate data and sound 
science when making decisions, especially when it comes to the 
renewable fuel standard. The RFS has been successful in South Dakota in 
encouraging investments and creating jobs in corn ethanol production. 
Mr. Pruitt understands the importance of corn ethanol to the Midwest.
  Throughout his tenure as attorney general, Attorney General Pruitt 
witnessed firsthand the negative impact that EPA regulations, such as 
the waters of the United States rule, have on U.S. landowners and on 
our business owners. He saw how incomplete economic analysis did not 
account for the full impact of regulations on U.S. citizens, and the 
regulatory burden was often far greater than what the EPA claimed it 
would be.
  The attorney general can modernize the EPA's approach to regulation 
and make certain that regulations are promulgated in a deliberate, 
fair, and transparent process. A better regulatory process will lead to 
better regulations. Better regulations will make certain our air, 
water, and land is protected, our economy continues to grow, and 
American jobs can continue to be created.
  Attorney General Pruitt has had a rigorous vetting process since 
first being nominated by President Trump. He has answered more than 
1,200 questions from Senators, more than 1,000 more questions than 
nominees for the EPA Administrator from the incoming Obama 
administration to the Bush administration or the Clinton 
administration. Additionally, his confirmation hearing was the longest 
for any EPA Administrator.
  I, personally, would like to thank Chairman Barrasso for spearheading 
this fair and very transparent confirmation process. I would also like 
to thank Attorney General Pruitt for taking the time to answer all of 
the questions that were asked of him and meeting with Senators both on 
and off the EPW Committee.
  General Pruitt's impressive background and depth of knowledge on EPA 
issues make him well suited to be the next EPA Administrator. As a 
member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and 
chairman of the subcommittee which has oversight of the EPA, I look 
forward to his eventual confirmation and to working with him in the 
future.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                        Prescription Drug Prices

  Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I recently read a story in the Wall Street 
Journal that I thought was so alarming it demanded action. Here is the 
headline: ``Marathon Pharmaceuticals to Charge $89,000 for Muscular 
Dystrophy Drug After 70-Fold Increase.''
  Yes, that is $89,000 a year, and, yes, that is a 70-fold increase--
70-fold, as in 7,000 percent.
  For those of you who have not read the article, here is the story. 
There is a rare disease called Duchenne muscular dystrophy. It affects 
about 12,000 young men in the United States. Most of them, 
unfortunately, end up dying in their twenties and thirties because of 
it.
  We don't have a cure yet for Duchenne. Until recently, there was not 
even a treatment with FDA approval. So, for many years, patients and 
parents have been importing a drug called deflazacort, a steroid, from 
other countries. Even though it is not a cure, it at least helps treat 
symptoms and has been a welcome relief to many families.
  Well, technically it is illegal to import a drug that doesn't have 
FDA approval. But there is a catch. The FDA does not quite enforce the 
ban against all unapproved drugs. In fact, it has issued regulatory 
guidance saying that you can get an exemption and buy an unapproved 
drug from overseas if you meet five conditions. First, you have to have 
a serious illness for which there is no other treatment available. 
Second, you can't sell the drug. Third, you can't pose an unreasonable 
risk to your health. Fourth, it has to be for you and you alone. Fifth, 
you can't buy more than a 3-month supply.
  All of that sounds fair enough. But if someone comes along and gets 
FDA approval for their version of the exact same drug, the exact same 
chemical composition of the drug that is being imported, then you 
cannot buy it overseas anymore. That is exactly what happened here.
  This was not a new drug. This was not a medical breakthrough. This 
was not a scientific advance. This was, plain and simple, an arbitrage 
opportunity. Other people had already gone to the trouble of making a 
drug that worked, but if you paid the expenses of getting FDA approval, 
you would essentially buy for yourself monopoly pricing power. That is 
what other companies missed, and now, to cover the costs of going 
through that approval process, Marathon is increasing the price from 
roughly $1,500 a year to $89,000 a year.
  I don't think it is an overstatement to say that this turn of events 
is nothing short of outrageous. It defeats the very purposes of our FDA 
laws. The reason we offer people the chance to create a monopoly is to 
encourage innovation and medical breakthroughs, to generate new drugs 
that are going to solve diseases or illnesses.
  What we are saying is, if you go to the pain and expense of 
developing a new treatment, we will give you the sole rights to sell it 
for a number of years so you can recover your costs, and, therefore, we 
will encourage more medical breakthroughs to alleviate the pain and 
suffering of the American people. In other words, monopoly rights are 
not merit badges. They are not a reward for business smarts. They are

[[Page 2800]]

supposed to serve the interests of patients. They are supposed to 
expand access to treatment. But in this case, what we see in our system 
is, in fact, restricting access and driving up the price for that 
coverage.
  I understand that many people with Duchenne are happy that Marathon 
has done this because now that the drug has FDA approval, insurance 
companies will likely cover it--unlike before when people had to pay 
out of pocket, meaning that poor kids didn't get access to deflazacort, 
whereas upper middle-class and rich kids typically did.
  I also know that Marathon has promised to increase spending on 
research on a new drug and to help people of limited means afford that 
treatment. That, too, is all to the good.
  I am not casting aspersions on anyone's motives here, but let's be 
real. Someone has to pay the full price of this drug at $89,000 a year. 
We have a drug that used to be available for $1,500 a year, and now it 
is $89,000 a year. Whatever happened, that is a systemwide failure. We 
as a Congress have to address it.
  There is simply no getting around the fact that this story should 
never have been written in the first place because it should have never 
happened in the first place. We should be channeling peoples' ambition 
and entrepreneurial spirit into finding cures, not finding new and 
clever ways to make a profit. That is what our food and drug laws are 
designed to do. That is what they have clearly failed to do in this 
instance.
  I just want to say that I am not going to let this story disappear. I 
am going to work with my colleagues to find a legislative solution to 
this mess and promote affordable, high-quality healthcare for all, for 
all families whose young children suffer from Duchenne and for every 
other orphan disease that has drugs that can be used for treatment and 
right now are being blocked from the market or for which we are paying 
way too much money as a society.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the last 47 years, the EPA has 
enforced science-based environmental policies that have resulted in 
cleaner air and water, the cleanup of some of our Nation's most 
contaminated lands and waters, and has improved our understanding of 
our changing climate. All of this has led to a healthier America.
  Bipartisan Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency--
everybody from the great Washingtonian Bill Ruckelshaus to most 
recently Gina McCarthy--took on the role and responsibility as EPA 
Administrator, knowing that it was their responsibility to protect 
existing environmental law and to let science be the guide on research 
and new policies. They took the EPA mission to heart, and they fought 
to protect human health and the environment.
  I have questions about whether the nominee, Mr. Pruitt, follows those 
same values, and I come to the floor to oppose his nomination to be the 
Administrator of the EPA.
  Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly attacked needed EPA regulations, and he 
supports polluters at the expense of the environment and health laws. 
He doesn't believe the scientifically proven causes of climate change 
are real.
  Less than a year ago, then-Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, 
working in their State, wrote: ``Scientists continue to disagree about 
the degree and extent of global warming and its connection to the 
actions of mankind.'' That was written in the Tulsa World.
  When questioned by my colleagues during the hearing process, he said: 
``The climate is changing, and human activity contributes to that in 
some manner'' but the degree of that contribution is ``subject to more 
debate.''
  The reason I raised these issues is that this issue of climate and 
climate impact is so real in the State of Washington. It is already 
happening, and it is already affecting our industries.
  As EPA Administrator, Mr. Pruitt would have the responsibility for 
setting the Agency's agenda, including how to respond to climate 
change, yet the fact that he doesn't support the existing climate 
change science puts him in a role where I think he would not protect 
the economic interests of our State.
  We cannot have a lackadaisical attitude about these issues. It is not 
a hypothesis. It is here. It is happening.
  In the Pacific Northwest, it is altering our region's water cycle, 
putting Washington's farming jobs and our $51 billion agriculture 
economy at risk. Wildfire seasons are longer and more severe than ever 
before. It is costing our Nation billions of dollars.
  Warmer water temperatures in our streams and rivers have degraded 
salmon spawning habitat, led to massive die-offs, and certainly our 
shellfish industry has been very challenged.
  With 25 percent of carbon dioxide emissions being absorbed by our 
oceans, it is raising the acidity level, and that is impacting the 
chemistry of Puget Sound. Oceans and their absorption of carbon dioxide 
emissions and these acidic conditions are making it hard for our 
shellfish industry to do the type of seeding that needs to take place. 
It is severely impacting the Pacific Northwest's $278 million shellfish 
industry. Ocean acidification has been found to dissolve the shells of 
important prey species, and the ocean acidification effects then carry 
up the food chain, if they are not addressed.
  If we have an EPA Administrator who isn't going to work to cut down 
on carbon emissions and thinks that it is only part of the impact, 
aren't there a lot of Northwest jobs at stake? For example, our 
maritime economy alone is worth $30 billion, so I would say there is a 
lot at stake.
  In looking at the record of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt, 
he fought EPA regulations that protect public health, including the 
cross-state air pollution rule, the regional haze rule, the clean air 
standards for oil and gas production sites, and the clean water rule.
  Despite this issue of repeatedly suing the EPA, he recently told 
Congress: ``I do not expect any previous lawsuits to adversely affect 
my performance as EPA Administrator.''
  Well, I have serious concerns about how Mr. Pruitt's past lawsuits 
will influence his aggressive attitude as EPA Administrator in not 
fighting for the things that are going to protect the jobs and economy 
in Washington State that count so much on a pristine environment.
  A letter was sent by 773 former EPA employees who served under 
Democratic and Republican administrations, stating: ``Mr. Pruitt's 
record and public statements strongly suggest that he does not share 
the vision or agree with the underlying principles of our environmental 
statutes.''
  His record does not give me the confidence that he is the right 
person to lead this Agency at this point in time.
  But there are other issues. During his time as Oklahoma attorney 
general, Scott Pruitt planned the Summit on Federalism and the Future 
of Fossil Fuels. This summit brought together energy industry 
executives with attorneys general to strategize against EPA, and they 
specifically discussed EPA's overreach, as they put it, regarding a 
very important issue called the Pebble Mine.
  The Pebble Mine is an attempt by some who want to actually establish 
a gold mine in the very place of one of the most successful salmon 
habitats in the entire world: Bristol Bay, AK.
  The EPA followed the letter of the law in their multiyear, science-
based assessment of Bristol Bay. They basically made sure that 
everybody understood what was at risk: that Pebble Mine would destroy 
up to 94 miles of salmon spawning streams; it would devastate anywhere 
from 1,300 to 5,350 acres of wetlands; and it would create 10 billion 
tons of toxic mine waste, which is nearly enough to bury Seattle. And 
all of this would occur in the headwaters of the greatest salmon 
fishery on Earth, where half of the sockeye salmon on the planet spawn.

[[Page 2801]]

  So the notion that this is how this nominee would spend his time--as 
I said, the mine itself is a direct threat to the $1.5 billion salmon 
industry in Bristol Bay. That is 14,000 jobs just in the Pacific 
Northwest. The importance of making sure that the mine is not located 
there is of the utmost importance, I say, to the salmon fisheries of 
the entire Pacific Northwest.
  I want to make sure we are putting someone in place who is going to 
fight for the laws that are on the books and to show leadership, not 
spend time trying to undermine the Agency, the organization, and its 
existing authority.
  If Scott Pruitt allowed Bristol Bay to go forward, it would be 
devastating to our State. It would be voting in favor of these 
polluters instead of making sure that we are protecting science and 
environmental law.
  I have very serious concerns, and that is why I am opposing this 
nominee. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will 
realize that these economies--the ones that depend on clean air and 
clean water, safe salmon spawning grounds--are dependent on our doing 
the right thing to protect what is really our stewardship of this 
planet that we are on only for a very short period of time. I hope my 
colleagues will consider all of this and oppose this nominee.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I want to speak about this nomination from 
the standpoint of our State, our State of Florida, because we are 
famous for sugar-white beaches, fertile fishing grounds, and unique 
environmental treasures, such as the Florida Everglades. These precious 
natural resources need our protection and our stewardship. In fact, 
Florida's multibillion-dollar tourism industry is driven by the fact 
that people come to our State to enjoy these kinds of environmental 
treasures.
  I have just come from a meeting with the American Hotel & Lodging 
Association. With multibillions of dollars of investments all over 
Florida, what happens if the guests don't come? That is a major 
investment that is lost.
  And, oh, by the way, a few years ago during the BP oil spill--when 
the oil got only as far east from Louisiana as Pensacola Beach, and 
some oil was in Choctawhatchee Bay and Destin and some tar balls were 
as far east as Panama City Beach, but not any further--the visitors 
didn't come because they thought the beaches were covered with oil.
  Well, right now Florida's unique environment is threatened by several 
environmental challenges, from the threat of fracking in this honeycomb 
of limestone filled with freshwater that supports the peninsula of 
Florida to algal blooms that have plagued much of Florida's Treasure 
Coast this last year, to the red tide in the Tampa Bay area, and to 
Burmese pythons in the Everglades. And that is just a little bitty 
partialness of the plagues. To deal with these challenges, States such 
as ours depend on the EPA as a backstop.
  I am here to express my concerns about the President's pick to lead 
this agency. It has been well documented that the President's pick is a 
friend of the oil industry. There is nothing wrong with that. But this 
is an industry that has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
political contributions to Mr. Pruitt and the PACs supporting him over 
the years.
  Ever since I was a young Congressman, I have been fighting to keep 
oil rigs off the coast of Florida. In the first place, there is not a 
lot of oil out there, but Florida's unique environment--from what I 
just told you about, the BP oil spill--its tourism-driven economy, and, 
oh, by the way, the largest testing and training area for the U.S. 
military in the world, the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida, as well as 
all of the testing ranges on the east coast, and how about the rockets 
coming out of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the rockets 
coming out of the Kennedy Space Center--because of all of those, you 
can't have oil rigs down there. For all of those reasons, it makes 
Florida incompatible with offshore oil drilling. An EPA Administrator 
with such close ties to the oil industry is deeply concerning for the 
people of Florida.
  But Mr. Pruitt's ties to Big Oil aren't the only concern that we have 
in Florida. During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt said that he 
believes that his views on climate change are ``immaterial'' to the job 
of the EPA Administrator.
  Whoa, the EPA Administrator is directly involved in things that 
involve climate change. I can't think of a more relevant issue for our 
EPA Administrator to be concerned with because Florida is ground zero 
when it comes to the effects of sea level rise.
  These are not projections, not forecasts. These are measurements over 
the last 40 years in South Florida. The sea has risen 5 to 8 inches.
  By the way, where is three-quarters of the population of Florida? It 
is along the coast. We are already seeing regular flooding at the mean 
high tide in the streets of Miami Beach, and they are spending millions 
on infrastructure in order to get those pumps working to get the water 
off the streets and raising the level of the streets.
  We are seeing the saltwater, which is heavier than freshwater, seep 
into the ground where there is a honeycomb of limestone filled with 
freshwater, and the seawater is seeping into the freshwater. So cities 
are having to move their city well fields further to the west because 
of the saltwater intrusion, and it only gets worse.
  The threat Floridians face every day is a result of this sea level 
rise that is very real. It is critical that we have an EPA 
Administrator that understands that there are things that are happening 
because of climate change. It is not immaterial to the job of the EPA 
Administrator; it is very relevant.
  There is Mr. Pruitt's history of questioning science, especially when 
the facts conflict with his friends, whom he surrounds himself with, 
about the effects of science. So whether it is protecting Florida's 
livestock from deadly parasites or protecting the air we breathe, 
science informs policy decisions that affect all of us--clean water, 
clean air. It affects public health, national security, and the 
environment.
  Yet we continue to see troubling reports about scientists being 
muzzled from the State level all the way up to the Federal level in the 
EPA. So it just seems that this is unacceptable. Our scientists should 
be free to publish scientific data and not be muzzled. They should be 
able to publish their reports without fear of losing their jobs or 
being censored for using phrases like ``climate change.''
  That is why I recently sponsored legislation to protect our 
scientists from political interference. The Scientific Integrity Act 
would ensure that Federal scientists can communicate their findings 
with the public. It requires Federal agencies to implement and enforce 
scientific integrity policies and ensure that procedures are in place 
so that if those policies are violated, it is known and there is a 
procedure to deal with that.
  I conclude by stating that Floridians and the State of Florida cannot 
risk the health of our environment or our economy on an EPA 
Administrator who pals around with folks that do all of what I am 
talking about--they question our scientists, denying the true threat we 
face from sea level rise and climate change. Floridians can't afford 
such a risk, and they shouldn't be forced to take this risk. Therefore, 
I will vote no on Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be EPA Administrator.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to 
Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mr. NELSON. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, I join my colleagues today to recognize 
that the environment is critically important. One of the true issues 
States face is getting back to the promises of the Clean Air Act and 
Clean Water Act to make sure States enjoy primacy, and I think that is 
a critical component that is not being discussed today as we look at 
guaranteed clean water and clean air--making sure that those closest to 
those issues have the ability to have

[[Page 2802]]

the input that was anticipated by almost every environmental statute. 
So I would remind my colleagues that when we focus many times on 
Federal issues and Federal appointments, one of the most important 
things that we can do is focus on the fact that these Federal agency 
heads need to work cooperatively with State organizations.
  Scott Pruitt, who is a soon-to-be former attorney general, 
understands the State role, and I think that is a critical 
qualification and an important distinction to make.


                               Ex-IM Bank

  But I didn't come to talk about the appointment of Scott Pruitt. I 
came to talk about something we could all agree on, and in fact the 
President and I agree on this, and I think everyone agrees on this 
almost unanimously, which is that American jobs matter. Putting 
Americans back to work in manufacturing is one of the most critical 
things that we can do in the Senate, making sure that our people have 
an opportunity to succeed, participate, and have an opportunity to 
produce goods and services that can be exported and can grow the wealth 
of our country and grow the economy of our country.
  Last week I joined President Trump in a small bipartisan lunch. We 
had a chance to talk about a variety of issues. There are very many 
issues that divide us, but this issue unites us. I specifically talked 
with the President about the need to get the Export-Import Bank up and 
running. I also talked to him about the Export-Import Bank in December 
and talked about the importance of enabling this institution to 
function for the American manufacturing worker. The great news is that 
President Trump agrees, and he informed me that we can in fact say he 
supports the Ex-Im Bank and that he would be nominating someone soon to 
serve on the Export-Import Bank.
  That led off a rash of discussion among the usual naysayers with the 
Ex-Im Bank, mostly driven by ideology and not fact. So I think it is 
important to come once again to reiterate the importance of the Ex-Im 
Bank.
  I certainly appreciate the President's interest in making American 
workers a priority. He will be at Boeing in South Carolina on Friday. I 
don't know if he will make any announcement about nominating someone to 
the Ex-Im Bank. I hope he does.
  There has been a lot of talk about supporting the economy and 
boosting American manufacturing jobs, but all that talk falls on deaf 
ears if we don't take action on the simple issues when we can 
accomplish those goals, and that simple issue is enabling the Export-
Import Bank to function. For decades the Export-Import Bank has leveled 
the playing field for American workers and businesses. Yet heavy 
politics is enabling one Senator to put political ideology before the 
jobs and well-being of thousands of American workers across our 
country.
  We worked very, very hard in 2015. We knew that we were going to be 
challenged to get the Ex-Im Bank reauthorized. In June of 2015, the 
Export-Import Bank expired and did not have a charter. It was not 
authorized for the first time in its more than 80-year history. I 
fought very hard to reauthorize it, as did a number of my colleagues. 
Finally, in December 2016, 6 months later, the Bank was given a 
charter, given an authorization. I want to point out something because 
I think way too often we think what stops this endeavor is partisan 
politics. Guess what. Over 70 percent of the House of Representatives 
voted for the Ex-Im Bank and over 60 percent of the Senate voted for 
the Ex-Im Bank. This is not a partisan issue. There is bipartisan 
support. Yet there is a narrow group of people who would rather put 
ideology ahead of American jobs. It is wrong on so many levels.
  Despite the fact, unfortunately, that we finally authorized the Ex-Im 
Bank over a year ago with overwhelming support, we do not have a Bank 
that can authorize any credits over $10 million. That is because it 
requires a quorum of Bank board members to make that decision. We only 
have two out of the five members of the board. That means that we don't 
have a quorum. So what has been happening is that there is $30 
billion--think about that, $30 billion--of American exports waiting in 
the queue, waiting for approval, hoping desperately to get the Ex-Im 
Bank up and running so those exports can receive the credit they need 
and receive the guarantees that those exports need and get people back 
to work.
  Do you know what else has been happening since we haven't had a 
quorum on the Bank? Thousands of American jobs have been transported to 
places like France and Canada. We are losing thousands of jobs.
  When I hear people say the Ex-Im Bank is the bank of Boeing or the 
bank of GE, trust me, I do not bleed for the executives of Boeing. I do 
not bleed for the executives of GE. They will do fine. In fact, they 
know how to get around this problem. They just move those manufacturing 
jobs to a country that will recognize the exports and will provide that 
export credit. That is what is happening. But guess what is happening 
to the American worker and families across these manufacturing 
facilities? They are getting pink slips. Why? Because this body refuses 
to give us a quorum on the Ex-Im Bank.
  The President understands this. The President understands how 
important it is to get these American workers back together. Now I want 
you just to think about what $30 billion of exports is worth to 
American employment. If we use the numbers that extrapolate, it is hard 
to know, but it is over 170,000 jobs. Think about the fact that 170,000 
jobs are waiting in the wings for us to do the right thing. When we 
move forward with the Ex-Im Bank, I think we will have a good day--a 
good bipartisan day when the President of the United States joins with 
those of us who care about workers and manufacturing in this country--
and we will get the Ex-Im Bank up and running. I think if we fail to do 
it and if we fail to send the signals that help is coming and that the 
Ex-Im Bank is going to be an effective institution that will once again 
play a role in American manufacturing and will be in that tool chest of 
trade opportunities--if we don't do it--then they are going to give up 
all hope, and they are going to find some other place to manufacture 
the products that will allow them to access the credit, that will allow 
them to sell their products overseas. So it is critically important.
  I want to leave with one statistic. The Peterson Institute recently 
estimated that the United States is losing $50 million in exports for 
every day that a nomination is not confirmed--$50 million of new wealth 
creation for our country. It is a travesty.
  Of all of the things I have seen here--the callous things--that sound 
so bureaucratic when you talk about the Ex-Im Bank, when you pick up 
the curtain and you look underneath, what we see are American jobs and 
American families and American opportunity and new wealth creation for 
our country and economic growth for our country. And because some 
institution that could give you a black mark in a political campaign 
says ``We don't like it,'' it doesn't get done. Shame on us.
  Thank you to the President for agreeing to help us move the Ex-Im 
Bank forward. Thank you to all of my colleagues--64 in the last 
Congress--who stood with us to get the Ex-Im Bank reauthorized and the 
over 70 percent of the House of Representatives, on a stand-alone vote, 
who voted for the Ex-Im Bank, who know how critically important this 
is. We can get this job done, and we can stop the migration of these 
jobs to other countries.
  I look forward to hearing more this week and hopefully early next 
week from the President. As a member of the Banking Committee, I look 
forward to pushing for a hearing and a vote on this nominee. And I look 
forward to the day that all of these exporters and these American 
workers can see that this institution can work for them, and that will 
be the day that those credits are approved at the Ex-Im Bank.
  Thank you so much, Mr. President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is postcloture on the Pruitt 
nomination.

[[Page 2803]]


  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. Mr. President, will my friend from Mississippi yield 
the floor for one moment?
  Mr. WICKER. I am delighted to yield.
  Ms. HEITKAMP. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to 
Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise this afternoon in 
support of Scott Pruitt, nominated for EPA Administrator, and to 
congratulate the leadership of this Senate and the administration for 
persevering on this nomination to the point where we will get a vote 
tomorrow afternoon and I think be able to end the week on a positive 
note.
  My good friend, the Senator from North Dakota, had just called for a 
good bipartisan day on the Senate floor, and I support many of the 
remarks she made in that regard. I would hope we could begin having 
some good bipartisan days with regard to the administration's 
nominations for these important positions.
  Sadly, it looks as though we will not have a bipartisan vote for 
Scott Pruitt. He will be confirmed but not nearly with the vote he 
should receive from Members on both sides of the aisle who know that 
there has been extreme overreach on the part of the EPA leadership 
under the Obama administration. The EPA needs a change in direction, 
and they need to become more sensible with regard to stopping 
pollution, while at the same time being friendly on job creation. So we 
will get this nomination finished tomorrow and we will have a good 
Administrator, but regrettably it will not be on a very bipartisan 
basis.
  This is the Scott Pruitt whom I have had a chance to learn about 
since he was nominated in January.
  The Scott Pruitt I have had a chance to learn about took on the 
polluters as attorney general for his State of Oklahoma and finalized 
multistate agreements to limit pollution, and he did so working with 
Democrats and working with Republicans on a bipartisan basis across the 
political spectrum. I think we need that sort of person as EPA 
Administrator. Scott Pruitt negotiated a water rights settlement with 
the tribes to preserve scenic lakes and rivers, and I think he is to be 
congratulated on that, not scolded. He stood up to oil companies and 
gas companies as attorney general for the State of Oklahoma and 
challenged them when they were polluting his State's air and water. 
Then--something I applaud--when the EPA overstepped its bounds and its 
mission and ceased to follow the law, he challenged the EPA. I submit 
to my colleagues that that is exactly the sort of balance we need to 
return to as Administrator of the EPA.
  In the hearing, which was rather extraordinary because of its length, 
Attorney General Pruitt demonstrated his knowledge, he demonstrated his 
intellect, and he demonstrated his patience. He was available all day 
long--an extraordinarily long hearing--answered more than 200 questions 
propounded at the hearing, and then beyond that he has now answered 
more than 1,000 questions for the record. Yet, in spite of this, it is 
disappointing that some of my colleagues, some of my friends on the 
other side of the aisle, have taken not only to disparaging his 
qualifications and his suitability for this position but also engaged 
in a slow-walking process designed to keep this nomination from even 
coming forward.
  Every Democrat boycotted the committee meeting that was called to 
report this nomination to the floor so that we could even have an up-
or-down vote. They walked out of the meeting. This is the sort of 
tactic we were able to overcome on a parliamentary basis, but it has 
given us what we now know is the slowest confirmation process in 225 
years. The only President to have a slower confirmation process was the 
one who was getting it all kicked off to start with; George 
Washington's was a bit slower. We will see. Maybe if this keeps going, 
we could surpass the slowness of the confirmation process that occurred 
for our first President.
  We need a change at EPA. The American people are ready for a change 
at EPA. We need an EPA Administrator who will listen to the 
environmentalists but also listen to the job creators. This means 
listening to the election but moving past the election and getting on 
to filling the positions that are important to Americans, such as the 
EPA Administrator.
  Most Americans believe we can protect the environment and still 
protect job creators, and so does Attorney General Scott Pruitt. Most 
Americans believe we can have clean air and water without destroying 
thousands upon thousands of jobs for Americans. That is what I believe. 
That is what Scott Pruitt believes.
  I would quote from a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal which 
William McGurn wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt but also generally in 
support of other nominations. With regard to Pruitt, Mr. McGurn says 
this: ``The fierce opposition to Mr. Pruitt speaks to the progressive 
fear that he might help restore not only science to its rightful place 
but also federalism.'' I think that is what Scott Pruitt is going to be 
about when he is confirmed tomorrow and finally gets down to working 
for us, the taxpayers, as Administrator of EPA.
  This is about the 1-month mark in this administration, and we are 
slowly getting past this unprecedented slow-walk effort by our 
colleagues. I certainly hope that with the 1,100 other appointments 
that have to be submitted and have to be spoken to by this Senate, we 
can hasten the process so we can pass legislation and be about the 
business our constituents sent us here to do.
  Approving Attorney General Scott Pruitt will allow us to move forward 
with the people's business with a man who has demonstrated courtesy, 
intelligence, patience, and professionalism, and I will be honored to 
be one of those voting yes tomorrow when we confirm this outstanding 
candidate as EPA Administrator.
  I thank the Chair.
  I yield the floor.
  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. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would like to follow up on something our 
friend from Mississippi was just saying. I want to make it clear that I 
am not really interested in obstructing. I am not interested at all in 
obstructing. What I am interested in is getting to the truth about this 
nominee and others.
  Two years ago, an organization called the Center for Media and 
Democracy petitioned, under the Oklahoma open records law--it is a 
FOIA-like law at the State level--they asked for access to thousands of 
emails that were sent from or to the attorney general's office under 
Scott Pruitt. That was 2 years ago. They have repeatedly renewed that 
request over time, and it has not been granted.
  Why might emails be germane? Well, they are germane because many of 
the emails were with industries that have differences with the EPA and 
in some cases are involved in lawsuits, a number of which were 
sponsored by or joined in by Attorney General Pruitt.
  Two years after the request to see those emails was submitted to the 
attorney general's office, they had not seen one of them. A lawsuit was 
filed earlier this month asking the court--I think it is called the 
district court of Oklahoma, a State court--asking to see the emails and 
asking that the court intervene so that the Center for Media and 
Democracy would have access to the emails.
  The Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee wrote to 
the judge, and we shared our voice because we have been making the same 
request of the attorney general's office--of the attorney general--as 
part

[[Page 2804]]

of the nominations process. He has declined to provide the emails to 
the Congress, the Senate, and we have let the judge know that we 
appreciate her attention to this matter and hope she might even 
expedite it. Well, an expedited hearing is called for this afternoon on 
the sharing of these emails that have been blocked, stonewalled, for 2 
years.
  What we did as Democrats on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee is I met with the majority leader, and nine of us wrote to 
the majority leader, and we said: With all due respect, we suggest to 
give the judge time to make a decision, and if the judge says the 
emails should be opened up, allow us to have until a week from this 
coming Monday to look at the emails to see if there is anything 
inappropriate or untoward that could be revealed.
  That request to the majority leader--he was very nice about it, but 
he basically said: We are not going to do that.
  I renewed the request here yesterday on the floor, and he said: No, 
we are not going to do that.
  I am generally one who thinks it is very important for us to 
communicate, collaborate, cooperate around here, as I think most of my 
colleagues would attest, but in this case, I don't think we made an 
unreasonable request of the nominee. And I think to block access to 
these emails--even when petitioned under the Oklahoma FOIA law, backed 
up by our support--for nothing to happen is just wrong. That is just 
wrong.
  So hopefully when the judge has this hearing later this afternoon--
actually, in 2 hours--we will find out a bit more as to whether the 
AG's office is going to be asked to turn these emails over and make 
them public with that information. I hope the answer will be yes. We 
will see.
  I asked Mr. Pruitt 52 questions on December 28 and asked they be 
responded to by January 9. January 9 came and went, and we were told 
maybe we would get the responses at the hearing we were going to have 
on January 18. We had the hearing on January 18, and some of the 
specific questions were answered, some not, but we submitted as a 
committee some 1,000 additional questions for the record. That is a lot 
of questions. I suggested to the committee chairman he give the nominee 
a reasonable amount of time to respond to those questions. The 
chairman, in the interest of moving things along, I think, gave the 
nominee 2 days, which is, in my view, not nearly enough.
  If we go back several years ago, the last EPA Administrator was a 
woman named Gina McCarthy. She was asked a number of questions. She was 
actually asked more questions, I think 1,400 questions, which is 
several hundred more than Scott Pruitt but a lot of questions. She did 
not have enough time to answer the questions, and a little extra time, 
maybe a week or so, was granted. She answered the questions, as I 
understand, fully, completely, and directly. I will read some of the 
questions we asked of Scott Pruitt later today, later tonight, with 
examples of the kind of answers he provided. Some were reasonably 
complete, but too many were evasive, indirect, or just nonresponsive. 
Maybe that is because the chairman only gave him a couple days to 
respond. That is not the way we ought to be about the business.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I came to the floor today to oppose the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I thank my colleague from Delaware, 
whom I had the honor to serve with when we were both Governors, for his 
good work to point out why Scott Pruitt is the wrong person to head the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  The EPA was created by a Republican President in 1970, Richard Nixon. 
I remember very clearly when he did that. Across subsequent decades, 
support for this Agency and for its important mission has been a 
strongly bipartisan endeavor. Our Nation has benefited from the service 
of dedicated, highly effective EPA Administrators from both parties, 
but I am deeply concerned that Scott Pruitt is a radical break from 
this bipartisan tradition.
  After reviewing Mr. Pruitt's environmental record, I have to ask: Why 
was he nominated for this critically important position? He rejects the 
core missions of the Environmental Protection Agency at every turn. He 
has sued the EPA to block protections for clean air and clean water; he 
is an outspoken climate change denier; he seeks to dismantle the EPA's 
Clean Power Plan, which was put in place to address climate change; and 
he opposes other efforts to slow the warming of this planet. Time and 
again, he has put private interests and their profits ahead of public 
interests and public health.
  As attorney general of Oklahoma, he has sided with oil and gas 
companies, and he has failed to protect the people of his State from 
some of the worst impacts of hydraulic fracturing. He has taken 
hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from fossil 
fuel industries, and he zealously advocated for their freedom to 
pollute our air and water.
  So again I ask: Why was Scott Pruitt nominated to serve as 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? Well, I think it 
is clear Mr. Pruitt was nominated not to lead the EPA forward but to 
prevent it from carrying out its mission. Make no mistake, Mr. Pruitt 
and his extreme agenda are a threat to the environment, to the planet, 
and to our public health.
  Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican Governor of New Jersey 
and whom I also had the honor of serving with when I was Governor--
Senator Carper, Christie Whitman, and I all served as Governors 
together. She also was EPA Administrator during George W. Bush's 
administration. What she said about Pruitt I think is worth listening 
to. This is a Republican talking about Scott Pruitt: ``I don't recall 
ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the 
agency and the science behind what the agency does.''
  People in the State of New Hampshire have no doubt about the reality 
of climate change. In the Granite State we see it. We experience it all 
the time. The steady increase in yearly temperatures and the rise in 
annual precipitation are already affecting New Hampshire's tourism and 
our outdoor recreation economy, which accounts for more than $4 billion 
a year and employs over 50,000 people. Each year, hundreds of thousands 
of sportsmen and wildlife watchers come to New Hampshire to enjoy our 
beautiful mountains, our lakes, our other natural resources, and our 18 
miles of coastline, which we are very proud of. As I said, hunting, 
fishing, and outdoor recreation contribute more than $4 billion to New 
Hampshire's economy each year, but much of this is now threatened by 
the warming of our planet. Rising temperatures are shortening our fall 
foliage season, they are negatively affecting our snow- and ice-related 
winter recreation activities, including skiing, snowboarding, and 
snowmobiling. An estimated 17,000 Granite Staters are directly employed 
by the ski industry in New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Department 
of Environmental Services warns that those jobs are threatened by 
climate change.
  Likewise, New Hampshire's and indeed all of New England's brilliant 
fall foliage is at risk. I wish to quote from a report by New Hampshire 
Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions. They say: ``Current modeling 
forecasts predict that maple sugar trees eventually will be completely 
eliminated as a regionally important species in the northeastern United 
States.''
  Climate modeling by the Union of Concerned Scientists projects that 
by the end of this century, New Hampshire summers will feel like 
present-day summers in North Carolina, 700 miles to our south. We have 
a map that shows what is going to happen to our red maples and the 
maple sugaring industry. We can see everything here that is in red, 
these are all those sugar maples. It is projected that by 2070 or 2100, 
they are gone. They are gone from New England, from the Northeast, and 
from most of the Eastern part of this

[[Page 2805]]

country. If we fail to act on climate change, this could mean a steep 
loss of jobs. It could mean a loss of revenue. It will destroy our 
maple sugaring industry and will damage our outdoor recreation 
industry.
  Maple sugar production is entirely dependent on weather conditions, 
and changes--no matter how modest--can throw off production and 
endanger this industry. Maple trees require warm days and freezing 
nights to create the optimal sugar content in sap production. The 
changing climate is putting more and more stress on sugar maples. As 
this map shows so well, it is already significantly affecting syrup 
production. If we fail to act on climate change, this could destroy our 
maple syrup industry. If you haven't done maple sugaring in the 
springtime, there is nothing like maple syrup over snow. There is 
nothing else like it. To lose that and to lose the jobs that are there 
is a real change to one of the recreational activities we love in New 
Hampshire.
  Climate change is also threatening our wildlife species and their 
habitats. The moose is an iconic feature of New Hampshire's culture and 
identity, but as the results of climate change, we have seen a 40-
percent decline in New Hampshire's moose population. We can see clearly 
from these pictures why we are losing our moose: Because of milder 
winters, ticks don't die off. It is really very tragic. The ticks 
multiply on a moose, they ravage it, and they eventually kill it. I 
don't know if people can see, but what look like little balls on the 
end of that moose's tail are ticks. This moose probably has brain worm, 
which is another problem the moose have because of winters that aren't 
cold enough to kill off those parasites. Ticks multiply on a moose, 
they ravage it, and they eventually kill it.
  We have seen modeling from the University of New Hampshire which 
suggests that by 2030, moose will be gone--not only from northern New 
Hampshire but from much of the northern part of this country.
  Other newly invasive insects are harming wildlife species as well as 
trees. Of course, people are also suffering from the impacts of climate 
change. Rising temperatures increase the number of air pollution action 
days. They increase pollen and mold levels, outdoors as well as 
allergen levels inside, and all of these things are dangerous to 
sensitive populations with asthma, allergies, and chronic respiratory 
conditions. In fact, New Hampshire has one of the highest rates of 
childhood asthma in the country because we are the tailpipe. All of New 
England is the tailpipe for the rest of the country. Pollution blows 
across this country from the Midwest and exits through New Hampshire 
and New England.
  Rising temperatures facilitate the spread of insect-borne illnesses 
such as Lyme disease. We could see on that moose what the impact is. 
Those ticks aren't just multiplying on the moose, they are multiplying 
in a way that affects people as well.
  Fortunately, because we have seen the impact of climate change, New 
Hampshire and the other New England States are taking the lead in 
reducing carbon emissions and transitioning to a more energy-efficient, 
clean energy economy. We are one of nine Northeastern States 
participating in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative called RGGI. It 
is essentially a cap-and-trade system in the Northeast. New Hampshire 
has already reduced its power sector carbon pollution by 49 percent 
since 2008. That is a 49-percent reduction in less than a decade. 
Thanks to efforts by State and local communities, New Hampshire is on 
track to meet the Clean Power Plan's carbon reduction goals 10 years 
early. In addition, we are using proceeds from emissions permits sold 
at RGGI auctions to finance clean energy and energy efficiency 
investments.
  Unfortunately, Scott Pruitt seems to believe that reducing pollution 
and investing in a clean environment are somehow bad for the economy. 
He is just wrong about that. Our efforts in New Hampshire and across 
New England to fight climate change and promote clean energy have been 
a major boost to economic growth. We have seen jobs added as a result. 
During its first 3 years, RGGI produced $1.6 billion in net economic 
value and created more than 16,000 jobs in our region. Nationwide, 
employment in the fossil fuel sector is falling dramatically, but job 
creation in the clean energy and energy efficiency sectors is 
exploding. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, more than 2 
million jobs have been created in the energy efficiency sector alone 
and--if we can ever get Congress to move the energy efficiency 
legislation Senator Portman and I have introduced--would create, by 
2030, another 200,000 jobs, just on energy efficiency. Across New 
England, we are demonstrating that smart energy choices can benefit the 
environment and strengthen job creation and the economy overall.
  So, again, we have to ask: Why does Scott Pruitt deny the science of 
climate change? Why has he urged States to refuse to comply with the 
Clean Power Plan? Why has he filed lawsuit after lawsuit to block 
enforcement of the Clean Air Act? Why does he deny something as nearly 
universally recognized as the dangers of mercury pollution?
  The bottom line, I believe, is that Scott Pruitt is first and 
foremost a fierce defender of the oil and gas industry. If scientists 
point to carbon emissions as the main cause of climate change, then he 
has to deny that science. If science and common sense point to 
hydraulic fracking as the cause of thousands of earthquakes in the 
State of Oklahoma, then he must deny that too. If the EPA's mission is 
to protect clean air and clean water from pollution caused by fossil 
fuels, then he has to sue the EPA and try to cripple it.
  Scott Pruitt's nomination is not about shaking things up in 
Washington. It is about turning over control of the EPA to the fossil 
fuel industry and turning back the clock on half a century of 
bipartisan efforts--in Democratic and Republican administrations 
alike--to protect clean air and clean water and to pass on to our 
children a livable environment and an Earth that they can inhabit from 
future generations.
  My office has been flooded with calls, emails, and letters from 
Granite Staters. They not only oppose Mr. Pruitt's nomination, they are 
genuinely afraid of the consequences of putting him in charge of the 
EPA.
  I heard from Deb Smith from Hampton, NH. That is a small community on 
our coastline. She wrote:

       I am a birder, love to walk on the beach and in the 
     mountains, and rely on time spent in nature to cope with a 
     [stage four] lung cancer diagnosis. Clean air is especially 
     important to me! Pruitt's long history of suing the EPA and 
     reversing decades of progress in improving the environment 
     disqualifies him for this post. It is essential to continue 
     to preserve and improve our natural environment for people, 
     birds, and other wildlife!

  Elizabeth Garlo of Concord writes:

       New Hampshire, due to quirks in its geology and the Earth's 
     rotation, is the ``tailpipe'' of the Nation with much of the 
     air pollutants from the Midwest exiting to the ocean from 
     here. The people of New Hampshire cannot sit back and watch 
     our children suffer from asthma and be restricted from 
     outside activities due to ``bad air quality days.'' Mr. 
     Pruitt will be a very significant detriment to the quality of 
     life in New Hampshire.

  Eugene Harrington of Nashua writes:

       I am AGAINST the appointment of Scott Pruitt to head the 
     EPA. He does not seem to support the purpose of the EPA. Now 
     I hear that even scientific papers are being reviewed to be 
     sure they support the current administration's view of 
     ``facts.'' Please do what you can to support a functioning 
     EPA.

  Christopher Morgan of Amherst, NH, writes:

       This is my first message I have ever sent to my senator in 
     my 32 years as a voting American. . . . As a registered 
     Republican . . . I am vehemently opposed to Mr. Pruitt 
     leading the EPA. He has consistently shown he does not 
     believe in the threat posed by climate change. Climate change 
     affects every citizen in this country and has a detrimental 
     effect on the New Hampshire climate specifically. President 
     Trump's willful disregard for the safety and protection of 
     all Americans cannot go unchecked.

  Let me emphasize that I have heard from many Republican constituents 
who oppose Scott Pruitt's confirmation. My Republican friends point 
with

[[Page 2806]]

pride to the fact that the EPA was created by a Republican President. 
After all, what could be more conservative than conserving our 
environment and preserving a livable Earth for future generations? For 
nearly half a century, protecting the environment has been a bipartisan 
priority and endeavor. That is especially true in the State of New 
Hampshire, where folks understand that clean air and water and fighting 
climate change are not and should not be partisan issues. We all have a 
profound stake in protecting the environment.
  Unfortunately, with the nomination of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA, 
the Trump administration is willing to shatter this bipartisan 
tradition and consensus, and we must not allow this to happen. I appeal 
to all of my colleagues but especially to all of those on the other 
side of the aisle: Don't allow this nominee to destroy your party's 
hard-earned, commonsense efforts to protect clean air, clean water, and 
a sustainable Earth.
  I urge us to come together--Senators on both sides of the aisle--to 
reject this effort to undo nearly five decades of bipartisan efforts to 
protect our environment and our planet.
  The stakes are incredibly high for all of us. By rejecting this 
unsuitable nominee, we can reconsider our approach to the EPA. We can 
embrace this Nation's bipartisan commitment to protecting the 
environment for future generations. This is what the great majority of 
Americans want us to do. Let's listen to their voices, and let's say no 
to this nominee, Scott Pruitt, who is not only not qualified for this 
position, he is not committed to the EPA and its mission.
  Mr. President, at this time I yield 30 minutes of my postcloture 
debate time to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Ms. HASSAN. Mr. President, I rise today, honored to speak after my 
colleague from New Hampshire and joining my other colleagues in 
opposing the nomination of Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt to 
serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Our beautiful natural resources define my home State of New 
Hampshire. From the White Mountains to the Seacoast, to our pristine 
lakes and our forests, our natural resources are critical to our 
economy, our environment, our way of life, and protecting these 
resources plays a critical role, as well, in protecting public health.
  However, we are already beginning to see the real impacts of climate 
change in New Hampshire, and these impacts threaten to have major 
consequences for our natural resources and families and businesses in 
every corner of my State. Recognizing that fact, members of both 
parties have come together in New Hampshire to enact commonsense 
bipartisan solutions to take on climate change and to grow and maintain 
our State's renewable clean energy sector. We have worked to protect 
our land, our air and water, and the health of our citizens.
  Unfortunately, it is clear from Mr. Pruitt's opposition to the Agency 
he will be tasked to lead, his record of working to weaken critical 
environmental protections that our citizens need to thrive, and his 
unwillingness to fight climate change, that he is unfit to serve in 
this position.
  The mission of the Environmental Protection Agency begins with 
protecting our environment and the health of all of our citizens. The 
EPA does critical work to protect the water we drink and the air we 
breathe.
  In recent years, the EPA has used sound scientific evidence to take 
strong measures to protect our environment. Unfortunately, President 
Trump has made clear that he does not support this critical Agency. 
Throughout his campaign, the President has repeatedly attacked the EPA, 
calling for its elimination and saying that our environment would be 
``just fine'' without it. The President has doubled down on his 
hostility toward this Agency by nominating Mr. Pruitt to serve as its 
Administrator.
  As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has been a vocal critic of the very 
Agency he has now been nominated to lead, and he has been involved in 
over 20 legal actions against it.
  According to the Washington Post, Mr. Pruitt has ``spent much of his 
energy as attorney general fighting the very agency he is being 
nominated to lead.''
  On social media, Mr. Pruitt has referred to himself as ``a leading 
advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' He has questioned the 
role of the Agency, stating that ``the EPA was never intended to be our 
Nation's frontline environmental regulator.''
  When asked by one of my colleagues if there were any clean air or 
clean water EPA regulations in place today that he could support, Mr. 
Pruitt declined to name a single one.
  The foundation of a future where all Americans have an opportunity to 
thrive starts with a healthy environment and healthy families. The EPA 
serves an important role in protecting the health of our people. We 
must do better than having an Administrator who has fought so 
tirelessly to undermine the work that this Agency does.
  I am also concerned by an EPA Administrator who has consistently 
voiced skepticism about the clear facts on climate change. Throughout 
my time in office, I have always fought to protect our environment and 
have been a strong supporter of curbing the impacts of climate change. 
As a State senator, I sponsored legislation that allowed New Hampshire 
to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, and I helped pass the 
State's renewable portfolio standard to maintain and grow New 
Hampshire's clean renewable energy sector.
  During my time as Governor, I worked with members of both parties to 
strengthen and build on those efforts, signing legislation to update 
the renewable portfolio standard and to maximize the benefits of the 
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.
  I am proud that my State has long led efforts to cut carbon 
emissions, and it is crucial that other States follow our lead and take 
responsibility for the pollution that they cause. That is exactly why I 
am a strong supporter of measures like the Clean Power Plan.
  I also strongly support the Paris agreement on climate change and 
believe that the United States must take action to implement the 
agreement while also ensuring that our international partners fulfill 
their obligations.
  Mr. Pruitt, however, has been a consistent skeptic on the role of 
climate change and the role that it has had on our environment.
  Mr. Pruitt has stated that we do not know the extent of human impact 
on climate change and has called climate change a natural occurrence. 
He has said that climate change is ``one of the major policy debates of 
our time.''
  And he continued:

       That debate is far from settled. Scientists continue to 
     disagree about the degree and extent of global warming and 
     its connection to the actions of mankind.

  Scientists are clear in their understanding of the climate change 
science. The American Association for the Advancement of Science says 
the scientific evidence is clear: Global climate change caused by human 
activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society.
  The American Geophysical Union says that humanity is the major 
influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years.
  The American Meteorological Society says it is clear from extensive 
scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in 
climate of the past half a century is human-induced increases in the 
amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases.
  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that warming of 
the climate system is unequivocal and human influence on the climate 
system is clear.
  The EPA is a science-based organization, and it is unacceptable for 
the EPA Administrator to be at odds with the well-established views of 
leading scientists. As the Agency's own website says:

       EPA is one of the world's leading environmental and human 
     health research organizations. Science provides the 
     foundation for

[[Page 2807]]

     Agency policies, actions, and decisions made on behalf of the 
     American people. Our research incorporates science and 
     engineering that meet the highest standards for integrity, 
     peer review, transparency, and ethics.

  Mr. Pruitt disagrees with well-established climate science. Simply 
put, that disqualifies him from leading an agency where ``science 
provides the foundation for . . . policies, actions, and decisions.'' 
If you refuse to believe research from the world's leading scientists, 
you cannot lead a science-based agency.
  From protecting our environment to protecting public health, the EPA 
plays a critical role in protecting the health of Granite Staters and 
all Americans. We know that a cleaner environment plays a key role in 
the economy, for the economy of New Hampshire and our entire country. 
We should be building on the critical efforts the EPA has taken to 
combat climate change and protect public health, not rolling them back.
  Mr. Pruitt's hostility to the basic functions of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and his work to undermine protections for clean air, 
land, and water make clear that he should not serve in this role.
  I will vote against Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and I urge my colleagues 
to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  When Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked 
Scott Pruitt for critical information on his environmental record as 
attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt said no to the Environment 
and Public Works Committee.
  When Democrats on the Environment and Public Works Committee asked 
our fellow Republicans to delay Mr. Pruitt's vote until he got that 
important information, the Republican leadership here said: No, we 
won't wait for that critical information so that all Senators and the 
American people can understand who is being nominated.
  When I asked Scott Pruitt if he would recuse himself from all issues 
relating to the cases that he has brought against the EPA as Oklahoma 
attorney general, Scott Pruitt said no to me.
  Today we are here to respond to these very serious issues that are 
being raised about his ability to be an impartial Administrator of the 
EPA because the question before the American people and the Senate is 
whether Scott Pruitt should be the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency, and that answer is no.
  The EPA is our cop on the beat, protecting the American people and 
our environment from harmful pollution, hazardous waste, and the 
impacts of climate change. But as attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott 
Pruitt has tried to undermine the clean water rule and the Clean Air 
Act, putting the public health of millions of Americans at risk.
  Scott Pruitt questions the science of climate change. Scott Pruitt 
has accused the EPA of overestimating air pollution from drilling of 
natural gas wells in Oklahoma. Scott Pruitt has argued against 
President Obama's Clean Power Plan, which the EPA is supposed to 
implement. Scott Pruitt has sued to block the EPA from restricting 
mercury, a toxin that causes brain damage in children in the United 
States.
  The only thing that Scott Pruitt is certain of is that he wants to 
represent the interests of the fossil fuel industry. He wants to change 
the environmental watchdog into a polluter lapdog. And today we are 
drawing a line out here on the Senate floor because it is critical that 
the American people understand the moral implications for the water 
Americans drink, for the air they breathe, for the mercury that could 
go into the blood systems of children in our country, for the amount of 
smog that is allowed to be sent into the air, the amount of haze that 
is created across our country, and why the nomination of Scott Pruitt 
leads inevitably, inexplicably toward more pollution, more unhealthy 
air, and more unhealthy water going into the systems of our families 
across our country.
  That really goes to what the moral duty is of the Senate, the moral 
duty we have to ordinary families across the country. Do Americans 
really think the air we are breathing is too clean? Do people really 
believe the water we drink is too clean? Do people really want to water 
down those standards? Do they want to reduce the safeguards we have put 
in place?
  One hundred years ago, life expectancy in the United States was about 
48 years of age. In other words, we had gone from the Garden of Eden 
all the way to about 100 years ago, and we had increased life 
expectancy to about 48 years of age--not much progress. Now, it was 
always good for the Methuselah family. The wealthy always did pretty 
well. They could protect themselves from the things that would affect 
ordinary families, poorer families, from the Bible to 100 years ago. 
But then what happened? All of a sudden there was an awakening in our 
country that we had to make sure the sewage systems in our country were 
not going to be able to pollute families across our society. Then step 
by step, beginning with sewage and water, we in our Nation came to 
understand that we had to remove the majority of pollutants that were 
out there that were damaging the lives of ordinary Americans. That was 
a change that transformed not just the United States but, over time, 
the whole rest of the world.
  Now, 100 years later, life expectancy goes out to age 80. In other 
words, we have added 32 years of bonus life to the average American 
over the last 100 years. And what did it? Well, it is no secret 
formula; it is just that we looked around and we saw the things we had 
to put in place in order to protect families, and we took a moral 
responsibility to make sure that those industries, especially those 
that were not providing protections, were forced to provide protections 
for those ordinary people.
  Here we are now considering Scott Pruitt as the new Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Here is what Mr. Pruitt has done 
as the attorney general of Oklahoma: He has sued the national 
Environmental Protection Agency for the State of Oklahoma 19 times, and 
the issues on which he has sued are almost a litany of the things that 
go right to the heart of the protections the American people want for 
their families.
  There are still eight cases that he brought pending before the EPA.
  I said to Scott Pruitt in the confirmation hearing: Attorney General 
Pruitt, will you recuse yourself from consideration of any of those 
eight pending cases during the time you are Administrator of the EPA if 
you are confirmed? And Mr. Pruitt said no. Well, as I said to him in 
the hearing, if you do not recuse yourself, Mr. Pruitt, that turns you 
into the plaintiff, the defendant, the judge, and the jury for all of 
those cases, and that is just an unconscionable conflict of interest. 
As a result, he would never be seen as an impartial Administrator at 
the EPA as he moved forward trying to repeal or weaken environmental 
protections through regulations that he originally sought to accomplish 
through litigation.
  We all know that across our country, overwhelmingly, the American 
people want--in the highest possible polling numbers, Democrat and 
Republican, liberal and conservative--they want the EPA to protect 
clean air, clean water, public health. They don't want children 
unnecessarily being exposed to pollutants in the atmosphere that can 
cause asthma. Those numbers are going up. The goal in America is to see 
the numbers go down, but that will not be the agenda Scott Pruitt 
brings to the EPA if he is, in fact, confirmed.
  This question of his fitness for this job also goes to the question 
of climate change. The science of climate change is now well 
established.
  Pope Francis came to the Capitol a year and a half ago to deliver his 
sermon on the hill to us, and what Pope Francis said to us is very 
simple: No. 1, that the planet is dangerously warming and that it is 
something which is being

[[Page 2808]]

caused by human activity largely and that those who are going to be 
most adversely affected are the poorest and most vulnerable in our 
society. As the Pope said, we have a moral responsibility to do 
something about it as the most powerful country in the world and, along 
with China, the leading polluter in the world. This is Pope Francis 
talking to us about climate change.
  What does Scott Pruitt say about climate science? He says he is not 
quite certain any actions really have to be taken in order to deal with 
that issue. Well, we have a Pope who actually taught high school 
chemistry and who delivered a science and morality lesson to the 
Congress. He told us that science is certain, and he told us that our 
moral obligation is unavoidable.
  If we had a nominee for the Environmental Protection Agency who 
embraced that science and morality, I would be voting for him, but that 
is not who Scott Pruitt is. He is ignoring the impact the fossil fuel 
industry is having, and he is unwilling to commit to taking steps that 
can reduce that danger for our planet and for the most vulnerable on 
the planet.
  So I stand in opposition to his nomination, as I will be standing out 
here all day and into the night. I don't think that we are going to 
have a more important discussion than the direction of the health of 
our planet and the health of the children in our country. I think it is 
something that the American people have to hear all day and through the 
night.
  With that, I see the arrival of the Senator from Ohio. I know that he 
has time to speak on the Senate floor. So I yield back my time so that 
my good friend Senator Portman can be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for yielding his time.


                            Opioid Epidemic

  Mr. President, I rise today to talk about this issue of opioids--
heroin, prescription drugs, now fentanyl--coming into our communities. 
It is at epidemic levels. We have worked on this issue over the last 
year in a bipartisan way and have made some progress. But I come today 
to the floor to report bad news and also to report something that 
Congress could do to help to address a new problem.
  There was a report recently that came out by the U.S.-China Economic 
and Security Review Commission--very disturbing. It said that there is 
a new influx of what is called fentanyl coming in from China. This is a 
synthetic form of heroin. It can be up to 50 times more powerful than 
heroin. Think about that.
  The report says:

       The majority of fentanyl products found in the United 
     States originate in China. Chinese law enforcement officials 
     have struggled to adequately regulate the thousands of 
     chemical and pharmaceutical facilities operating legally and 
     illegally in the country, leading to increased production and 
     export of illicit chemicals and drugs. Chinese chemical 
     exporters covertly ship these drugs to the Western 
     Hemisphere.

  So that comes from an official report from this Commission on the 
United States and China. It is confirmed, unfortunately, back home. I 
was home this week meeting with law enforcement on Monday. They told 
me: Rob, the top issue in our community is now not heroin; it is 
fentanyl, and it is this synthetic form of heroin that is far more 
powerful.
  At least in their minds, they think that it is also more effective at 
making people addicted because it is less expensive and the trafficking 
of it is more aggressive. So this is a big concern because we were 
finally, I thought, making some progress on the prescription drugs and 
the heroin, and now this fentanyl, Carfentanil, and U4--it goes by 
various names depending on the chemical compounds--are coming into our 
communities.
  It is truly scary. The consequences are, I hope, obvious to everybody 
now. We are losing one American every 12 minutes. This speech will be 
about 12 minutes. We will lose another American to an overdose. But it 
is getting worse, not better. By the way, it is everywhere. Last year, 
in 2016, every single State in the Union had at least one forensic lab 
test positive for fentanyl.
  According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the 
number of positive forensic tests for fentanyl in the United States 
doubled, in fact, from 2014 to 2015. We believe it is worse. We know it 
is worse than 2016 from the information we have. Unfortunately, even 
this year, this month and a half, we have seen more and more evidence 
of fentanyl coming into our communities.
  According to the China Commission's report, the top destination for 
Chinese fentanyl, by the way, is my home State of Ohio. We had more 
positive tests for fentanyl than any other State. By the way, 
Massachusetts--to my colleague who has been involved in this issue and 
worked on this issue and helped to try to stop the overprescribing of 
prescription drugs--was No. 2.
  We are talking about 3,800 positive tests for fentanyl in Ohio alone. 
I do believe this is something that is being confirmed at the local 
level, not just from my meeting on Monday but from what I am hearing 
from around the State. Just 2 days after the Commission's report came 
out, in Butler County, OH, police seized $180,000 in fentanyl-laced 
heroin after suspected fentanyl overdoses killed five people in just 2 
days.
  Drug overdoses in Butler County, by the way, have nearly tripled 
since 2012. When I was in Dayton, I met with the Dayton R.A.N.G.E., 
which is a law enforcement task force--the Regional Agencies Narcotics 
and Gun Enforcement Task Force. They told me that this is now their 
biggest problem.
  They said, because it is stronger, there are more overdoses and more 
deaths than there are with a similar amount of heroin or the number of 
people using heroin. They said that just over a 2-week period, they had 
seized more than 40 pounds of drugs off the streets, including 6 pounds 
of fentanyl last week. Now, 6 pounds of fentanyl, as I do the math, is 
at least 20,000 doses--20,000 doses in 1 town in Ohio.
  I want to thank Montgomery County Sheriff Plummer, the task force, 
and all of our law enforcement for their hard work to get this poison 
off the street. But they need our help. They need some additional 
tools. They told me about a 14-year-old girl who had tried fentanyl for 
the first time. She had never tried, apparently, any other drug. She 
snorted it. The people she was with had snorted drugs before, but she 
had not, which is one reason she not only overdosed but she died 
immediately. At 14 years old, her promising life was cut short.
  It was in the Dayton suburb of Enon, a little more than a week ago, 
that a 5-year-old boy was seen running down the streets yelling: ``Mom 
and dad are dead. Mom and dad are dead.''
  A driver saw the boy and called the police. They went to his house 
and found his parents. They weren't dead, fortunately, but they were 
unconscious. Mom was on the kitchen floor. Dad was on the living room 
floor. His skin had already turned blue, which is a sign of someone who 
overdoses and is close to death.
  The first responders heroically saved both of them using Narcan--
naloxone--this miracle drug that reverses the effects of an overdose. 
By the way, it took six doses of naloxone to revive the boy's father--a 
good sign, according to law enforcement, that this was not heroin but 
that it was heroin laced with fentanyl, something far stronger than the 
normal heroin--six doses.
  We saw a 37-percent increase in drug overdose deaths last year in 
Dayton, OH, with victims as old as 87 and as young as 2 years old. Drug 
overdose deaths in Dayton are now on pace this year to be even more 
dramatic--54 deaths already in the last month and a half, which is more 
than any month and a half last year. Some 235 people have had their 
lives saved with naloxone. The Dayton Fire Department's call volume 
went up 17 percent compared to last January already.
  So, again, it is not getting better. It is getting worse.
  It is not just Dayton. It is not just cities. This addiction knows no 
ZIP code. In suburbs, rural areas, and the inner city--it is 
everywhere, and, by the way, in all demographics. In Medina County, OH, 
in Northeast Ohio,

[[Page 2809]]

their overdoses doubled from 2015 to 2016. In Darke County, OH, north 
of Dayton, a rural county, they are on pace to quadruple last year's 
number of drug overdoses already this year.
  So why are these increases happening? One of the reasons is because 
of the increasing potency of these drugs on the street, particularly, 
again, this move from heroin to synthetic heroin that is more powerful.
  Dayton paramedic David Gerstner puts it this way:

       I don't want to say our overdose rate has increased 
     dramatically--because that doesn't even come close to 
     covering it . . . The potency of the drugs has increased to 
     the point that instead of patients needing 2 milligrams of 
     naloxone or 4 milligrams of naloxone or Narcan, we have had 
     patients who need 20 milligrams or more.

  Again, it takes many, many doses of Narcan, also called naloxone, to 
be able to save these lives. In Darke County, which, again, is north of 
Dayton, Rescue Chief Brian Phillips said:

       With the introduction of new illegally made synthetic 
     opiates [like] fentanyl and Carfentanil, heroin users are 
     overdosing at a more rapid rate. These derivatives are much 
     more potent and deadlier. The majority of our overdoses are 
     not breathing, and in some cases are in complete cardiac 
     arrest. We are also finding ourselves using more Narcan to 
     resuscitate these patients.

  So this is the word from those who are in the trenches dealing with 
this every day. It is not good news. In just the first week of 
February, by the way, in his department in Darke County, OH, they had 
12 overdose calls--in the first week of February. This is a town of 
13,000 people.
  So it is clear that these drugs are getting on the street, and they 
are stronger, more addictive, and more dangerous. Heroin is already 
addictive enough and relatively inexpensive compared to prescription 
drugs, which is why many people move from prescription drugs to heroin. 
Probably four out of five heroin addicts in Ohio started with 
prescription drugs, according to the experts.
  But now it is being laced, this more powerful synthetic drug. The 
Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation tested 34 cases of fentanyl in 
2010. In 2015, they tested 1,100--a thirtyfold increase. Last year that 
number doubled again to 2,400 cases. Again, they have already tested 
for a record breaking number this year in the last month and a half.
  According to the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network, you can buy 
small doses of heroin and fentanyl for as little as $5 to $10 now in 
Southwest Ohio. A lot parents and family members of those struggling 
with addiction worried about this, and it is very easy to see why. As 
the coroner in Butler County said:

       Buying heroin today is like playing Russian roulette . . . 
     people don't know what's in the product they're going to use, 
     and it may not be the same [from] one use to the next.

  The coroner in my home town of Cincinnati, Lakshmi Sammarco, put it 
like this. You buy heroin, and ``you may be gambling with your life'' 
because it is more dangerous than ever.
  We have to get that message out there. We have not done a good job of 
communicating this basic message that you are gambling with your life.
  Dr. Richard Marsh, Clark County coroner, says:

       We're seeing a lot more fentanyl than heroin now. It 
     started about the middle of 2015 . . . there are all kinds of 
     labs producing it now and a lot of people think they're 
     buying heroin when in fact they're getting fentanyl, which is 
     fifty times as powerful.

  How powerful is that? Let me give you an example. According to the 
DEA, or the Drug Enforcement Administration, it takes only 2 milligrams 
of fentanyl, about the same as a pinch of salt--think about that--to 
kill you. That is how powerful it is.
  So again, going back to this China Commission report, they say most 
of these synthetic drugs are being made in labs in China and being 
shipped to the Western Hemisphere--to our country, to our communities.
  How is it coming in? People are surprised to learn that it is coming 
in through the mail system. These deadly poisons are coming in through 
the mail system.
  So unlike heroin, which primarily goes over land, primarily from 
Mexico, these drugs are actually coming in from Asia, from China and 
India, through the mail system. Unlike the private mail carriers, such 
as UPS or FedEx, our mail system does not require that people say where 
the package is coming from, what is in it, or where it is going. I 
think people are kind of surprised to hear that too.
  That, of course, makes it is easier for the traffickers and much 
harder for our law enforcement to be able to deal with this problem. 
They cannot scan these packages that are suspect for drugs like 
fentanyl or other smuggled products because there are just too many 
packages--millions of packages. But if they had that information, if 
that was required on every package--electronically, in advance, 
digitally; this data, where it is coming from, what is in it, where it 
is going--our law enforcement officials tell us they would have a 
better shot at being able to stop this poison and being able to 
identify those packages.
  I applaud my colleagues because with the Cures Act last year--it 
passed at the end of last year--we provided much more funding to our 
communities, to our States. Half a billion--$500 million--is going out 
to our States to be able to deal with the issue of drug treatment and 
recovery services. It is very important.
  That $500 million, by the way, is this year and next year. That is 
really important to fight the epidemic. I also, of course, applaud my 
colleagues with regard to the legislation called CARA, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. This provides us with not 
just more funding but better practices with regard to prevention, 
education, treatment and recovery, and providing the police with Narcan 
training and providing more Narcan resources to our first responders, 
whom we talked about.
  So again, in the last year, Congress has taken some important steps 
forward. I commend the House and Senate for that. By the way, it was 
bipartisan from the start. I think that is beginning to make a 
difference. I wish the programs in the Comprehensive Addiction and 
Recovery Act could be implemented more quickly.
  Unfortunately, there are still five more CARA grant programs that 
have yet to be implemented. Many of us pushed the last administration. 
Now we are pushing this administration to move quickly on that because 
this crisis is out there in our communities now. We need the help. But 
we are getting that in place, and that is important.
  But we now need to build on those efforts because of this synthetic 
heroin that is coming in. An obvious step to me would be to simply say 
that the Postal Service has to require what the private carriers 
require so these traffickers are not favoring the Postal Service and so 
we can begin to stop some of these dangerous synthetic drugs from 
coming into our communities, but also so that we can give law 
enforcement a tool to be able to target this and so that, at a minimum, 
we can increase the cost of this poison coming into our communities. It 
seems common sense to me.
  Last week, Senators Klobuchar, Hassan, Rubio, and I introduced 
legislation called the Synthetic Trafficking and Overdose Prevention 
Act, or STOP Act, to simply close the loophole and require the Postal 
Service to obtain advance electronic data on packages before they cross 
our borders. We just introduced it 2 days ago. It simply closes the 
loophole and requires the Postal Service to obtain advanced electronic 
data along the lines I talked about: where it is from, what is in it, 
where it is going.
  In the House, by the way, there is companion legislation, which makes 
it easier to get this done because the House also understands this 
problem. My colleague, Congressman Pat Tiberi from Ohio, is one of the 
people who are focused on this issue. He is one of the cosponsors. The 
other cosponsor is from Massachusetts, Richie Neal. Their companion 
legislation will make it easier for us to get this job done.
  This bill is totally bipartisan--in fact, I would call it 
nonpartisan. It is based on expert testimony we had before our Homeland 
Security Committee, where we heard directly from

[[Page 2810]]

law enforcement. It is a simple change that would make it much easier 
for them to detect these packages, particularly those from these 
Chinese labs that the China Commission report talked about.
  It is not a silver bullet. No one has that silver bullet. But our 
bill will take away a key tool of drug traffickers and help restrict 
the supply of these drugs, this poison in our community, making their 
price higher and making it harder to get.
  With the threat of synthetic heroin growing worse and worse every 
day, there is an urgency to this, so today I urge my colleagues to join 
us in this legislation. Cosponsor it. Let's get this through the 
committees.
  The Finance Committee will be taking up this legislation. I am on 
that committee. I hope we move very quickly to mark it up, get it to 
the floor, pass the legislation here in the Senate, combine it with the 
legislation that is working through the House, get it to the 
President's desk for signature, and begin to provide some relief to our 
communities from this influx of synthetic heroin that is continuing to 
tear our families apart, devastate our communities, and ruin lives.
  This is about ensuring that young people, like the young people who 
are with us today, the pages on the floor, have the opportunity to 
pursue their dream, whatever it is. This is about ensuring that we are 
stepping up as a Congress to deal with a global problem. It is coming 
in from overseas. It is an international problem. Certainly this is one 
where the Congress ought to act to ensure that our U.S. Postal Service 
does the right thing to help law enforcement be able to better protect 
our communities.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to 
savage environmental protections, and his administration has already 
started down this path of reversing some of our hard-fought progress to 
ensure we have a clean environment: clean water and fresh air. By 
nominating Mr. Pruitt, President Trump has chosen someone equally 
hostile to the very notion of defending our environment and our 
Nation's health.
  Respected voices on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar 
alarm over Mr. Pruitt's nomination. President George W. Bush's former 
EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Agency from 2001 
to 2003, stated in reference to Mr. Pruitt: ``I don't recall ever 
having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the 
Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.''
  This is a sentiment I have heard from over a thousand Rhode 
Islanders--environmentalists, researchers, conservationists, community 
leaders, parents, concerned citizens--who agree that Mr. Pruitt is a 
troubling choice for this role. They have contacted my office to 
express how distressed they are that someone with Mr. Pruitt's record 
and background could be chosen to lead the EPA.
  Last week I hosted a roundtable to hear these concerns directly from 
my constituents. These Rhode Islanders shared their worries about the 
state of our changing environment, anxiousness about Mr. Pruitt's 
nomination, and concerns over what they have seen so far, and fear is 
coming with respect to the Trump administration's approach to our 
environment. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that we 
have clean air and clean water because these natural resources are so 
important to our economy, our health, and our quality of life.
  I share that commitment. I have consistently voted for strong 
environmental policies that seek to limit pollution, promote renewable 
energy, and mitigate the effects of climate change.
  The EPA oversees the Federal Government's role in protecting our 
health and environment. It needs a leader who fundamentally believes in 
its core mission. Scott Pruitt has a record of working against the 
Agency's goals to protect Americans from pollution. That is the goal of 
the Agency. He does not believe or respect the scientific findings 
regarding climate change, and his close ties to the oil and gas 
industry are a serious concern.
  These kinds of beliefs and views should be of concern to everyone in 
this Chamber.
  As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA multiple 
times seeking to eliminate pollution regulations. He has a record of 
not only challenging the legal, scientific, and technical foundations 
of EPA rules, but he has also questioned the EPA's authority to issue 
them.
  Mr. Pruitt filed as the plaintiff in these lawsuits, many of which 
are still pending. If confirmed as the EPA Administrator, he would be 
switching sides to become the defendant in these lawsuits. And yet, he 
has refused to recuse himself from any of these or related cases. He 
has also failed to provide records of his communications with fossil 
fuel companies during the years he served as attorney general.
  It is abundantly clear that he cannot be impartial.
  This lack of transparency regarding Mr. Pruitt's connections to the 
oil and gas industry raises serious questions about what influence 
these conflicts will have on his ability to enforce regulations that 
protect everyday Americans from pollution generated by fossil fuel use.
  The EPA Administrator must be someone who will uphold and enforce 
Federal environmental laws impartially and honorably, with Americans' 
health in mind.
  One issue in particular that comes to mind is one I have worked on 
for decades across multiple Federal agencies--lead poisoning 
prevention. I have long advocated for better Federal policies and more 
funding to protect children from lead hazards. While the Department of 
Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention do much of this work, the EPA plays an important role as 
well.
  I think we saw that very clearly over the last year with the 
situation in Flint, MI.
  I was deeply concerned that when asked about lead poisoning among 
children during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt told the committee 
that he, in his own words, ``really wasn't familiar with the basic 
science surrounding the health effects of lead poisoning.'' For the 
sake of his education on this issue--and to make all my colleagues who 
might not be aware of the impact--lead poisoning in children can cause 
serious and irreversible developmental and health problems.
  We need an EPA Administrator who is familiar with and committed to 
protecting the health of our children from these and other kinds of 
environmental health hazards. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. 
Pruitt is qualified to do so.
  During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt also displayed a lack of 
understanding of the role human activity plays in climate change, as 
well as a disregard for the scientists who have spent their lives 
studying and carefully observing our Earth's changing climate.
  Our next EPA Administrator should understand the threat of climate 
change and base the Agency's policies on scientific data and findings 
without ideological influence. Many people across the Nation were 
distressed and deeply concerned by the removal of climate change 
reports from the EPA's website shortly after President Trump took 
office. I share that concern, and I am disturbed that the EPA has 
recently put a hold on issuing new grants and instituted a gag order on 
all communications.
  This is alarming. The halting of Federal funds means that our 
investments in our water infrastructure, remediation of our watersheds, 
and support for numerous others environmental initiatives so vital to 
our local communities and States will be affected, and

[[Page 2811]]

this will seriously harm environmental protection efforts. In Rhode 
Island, these cuts could have devastating effects, such as hindering 
the State's ability to provide clean air and clean drinking water for 
all residents.
  We need an EPA Administrator who is committed to safeguarding clean 
water and clean air and who is experienced in environmental protection. 
This role demands someone who is prepared to preserve and defend our 
environment from harm, who can make decisions based on scientific 
evidence, and whose financial ties will not impact his decisions when 
it comes to protecting the American public from pollution.
  Scott Pruitt is not the EPA Administrator we need. The nature of the 
lawsuits he filed attempting to dismantle EPA regulations that protect 
clean air and water--the very regulations he would be charged with 
enforcing--demonstrates that he is not committed to defending our 
natural resources, our health, and our well-being. Mr. Pruitt, in my 
estimate, is unsuited and unqualified for this critical leadership 
position.
  For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting no.
  Mr. President, I respectfully ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to yield the remainder of my time on this nomination to my colleague, 
Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to urge my 
colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the 
Environmental Protection Agency, a nomination that marks yet another 
broken promise from the new President to put the needs of American 
families first over the wishes of big corporations and special 
interests. And just like we have seen with Betsy DeVos at the 
Department of Education or Steve Mnuchin at Treasury, we have yet 
another Trump nominee whose record demonstrates a direct conflict with 
the mission of the agency they wish to lead. On the EPA's website, that 
mission is pretty clear--``to protect human health and the 
environment''--and EPA achieves that by enforcing regulations based on 
laws passed by Congress. So I will be voting no on this nomination.
  I want to make two points on why Mr. Pruitt heading up the EPA would 
be wrong for our country and why it would be wrong for the families I 
represent in Washington State. It starts with his record and clear 
conflicts of interest.
  During Mr. Pruitt's term as the attorney general for Oklahoma, he 
filed no less than 19 cases to overturn environmental regulations, 
including one to topple the EPA's Clean Power Plan. These regulations 
specifically seek to protect public health by reducing harmful air and 
water pollution and are projected to save tens of thousands of lives 
each year.
  As if it wasn't bad enough that Mr. Pruitt spent so much time filing 
lawsuits in court and fighting policies designed to protect the health 
of the environment as well as people, it is pretty shocking that at the 
same time, he was collecting millions of dollars from the very 
industries he will regulate if he is confirmed. This is no small 
conflict of interest between his former and potentially future 
position, and that he was still nominated to be EPA Administrator is 
mind-blowing to me.
  I echo the sentiments of so many who have expressed serious concerns 
about Mr. Pruitt's conflict of interest, that his ties to the fossil 
fuel industry make him more indebted to backing policies that loosen 
environmental regulations, benefiting big oil and gas companies, rather 
than backing policies that protect the American people.
  Mr. President, I want to voice another concern my constituents have 
shared with me. It is unnerving to think the President would choose a 
climate change denier to set our national environmental policy. I don't 
see how someone who has openly denied the existence of climate change--
the devastating effects of which we are already beginning to see in 
Washington State and around the country--will effectively protect human 
health or the environment.
  This is about more than just the environment. A report by the 
Congressional Budget Office last year found that climate change is a 
serious threat to our economic stability. As the occurrence of national 
disasters continues to rise, the cost of disaster assistance and 
rebuilding rises too.
  If we want to be responsible about tackling our fiscal challenges--
which I would think the President and Mr. Pruitt would agree on--we 
need to take the impacts of climate change seriously. At a time when we 
are already seeing the very real effects of climate change in my home 
State, from longer, more devastating wildfire seasons to ocean 
acidification and rising sea levels, it is more important than ever. 
This brings me to how Mr. Pruitt's confirmation would be devastating 
for my home State of Washington.
  As someone who personally spends a great deal of time fishing and 
hiking in my home State of Washington, I am committed to conservation 
and preservation efforts so generations to come can appreciate the high 
quality of life we enjoy and experience the splendor of America's 
natural spaces, one of the most important being the restoration and 
recovery of salmon runs and habitat throughout the Pacific Northwest, 
which is a vital part of our Northwest economy and its heritage.
  I am deeply concerned about whether this support would continue under 
an EPA Administrator like Mr. Pruitt. I have similar concerns about the 
Hanford cleanup, a critical part of our State's history that EPA plays 
a very important role in to protect the health and safety of our Tri-
Cities community, Columbia River, and Washington State.
  I will fight against any EPA nominee or an Administrator who will not 
join us in the fight for a better future for generations to come. I 
sincerely hope the President and Mr. Pruitt truly understand the 
enormous responsibility of the Environmental Protection Agency, not 
only in protecting our environment for future generations but for the 
families we represent who rely on clean air and clean water right now.
  For the sake of our children and grandchildren, we need to act now to 
avoid lasting, irreversible damage to our health, our environment, our 
economy, and our country's future. I am not confident in putting that 
future in Scott Pruitt's hands.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to Senator 
Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Carper can receive 21 minutes of that 
time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Additionally, I yield the remainder of my time beyond 
that, of my postcloture debate time, to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you very much.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to rescind my 
previous request and reclaim my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CASEY. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to speak in 
opposition to the nomination of the Oklahoma attorney general, Scott 
Pruitt, to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency which we all know as the EPA.
  My concern--I have a number of them, but the principal concern of Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination is rooted in his record, which I believe is totally 
inconsistent with the mission of the EPA.

[[Page 2812]]

That mission is to protect human health and the environment. We know 
the EPA achieves this core goal through the development and enforcement 
of standards to protect children and families from exposure to 
dangerous pollutants in our air and water.
  Protection of human health means ensuring that our children have 
clean air and clean water, tackling climate change, which leads to the 
kind of food insecurity that causes malnutrition in children throughout 
the world.
  I have to say that as a Pennsylvanian, I think I have an obligation 
to not only speak about these issues but to fight on behalf of policies 
that will advance the knowledge and mission of the EPA but will be 
consistent with the directive I am obligated to follow in my State's 
constitution. In Pennsylvania, if you go back to the founding of 
Pennsylvania forward, we had many generations, especially through the 
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, throughout most of the 1800s 
and into the 1900s, until about the midcentury point, where we didn't 
do a very good job of protecting our air and water and human health 
because we let one or another industry pretty much do whatever they 
wanted until the modern era. Fortunately, since that time, Pennsylvania 
has made a lot of progress. One of the measures of that progress and 
something I am bound by is a provision of the State's constitution, 
article I, section 27, that says people shall ``have a right to clean 
air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, 
historic, and esthetic values of the environment.''
  That constitutional provision goes on to talk about each of us as 
citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania being trustees of the 
environment--especially and ever more so if you are a part of State 
government, and I would argue the Federal Government as well. To say I 
feel an obligation is a major understatement. I think I am bound by 
that, and that enters into my determination and analysis of Mr. 
Pruitt's record.
  We know in recent years the EPA, acting under the authority it is 
granted through laws like the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, has 
developed a number of important standards to advance these priorities--
rules like the mercury and air toxics standards, the cross-state air 
pollution rule, the ozone rule, the new source performance standards 
for the oil and natural gas industry, the Clean Power Plan, which is 
meant to obviously focus our policy on climate change, and other 
policies to reduce exposure to pollutants like methane, volatile 
organic compounds, mercury, and carbon pollution itself.
  According to the American Lung Association's ``State of the Air 
2016'' report, these rules reduce the likelihood of premature death, 
asthma attacks, lung cancer, and heart disease. I would hope that if 
you have a series of measures in place that reduce the likelihood of 
asthma attacks, lung cancer, heart disease, and premature death--I 
would hope we would not only advance those policies but make sure they 
are not destroyed, undermined, or compromised. It is just common sense 
to make sure we regulate pollutants like lead, mercury, arsenic, and 
acid gases, just by way of example.
  Yet Mr. Pruitt, who is the attorney general of Oklahoma, filed 14 
lawsuits against the EPA to halt the regulation of these pollutants 
that threaten our children's health. Mr. Pruitt has stood up for the 
interests of oil and gas companies but has failed to defend, in my 
judgment, the most vulnerable members of our society, or at least not 
defend them to the extent that I would hope he would, not only as 
attorney general of Oklahoma but as the EPA Administrator were he to be 
confirmed.
  When asked during his confirmation to name one clean air or clean 
water regulation he supported, he couldn't name one.
  I believe his record is clear. He fought to dismantle the Clean Air 
Act, the Clean Water Act, anti-pollution programs to target ozone and 
mercury in the air, the agreement to clean up the Chesapeake Bay--which 
I will get to in a moment--and has even denied the science of climate 
change. Suffice it to say, I have a number of basic concerns about his 
record and what he would do were he to be confirmed.
  One example of the concerns I have involve the Chesapeake Bay with 
regard to impact in Pennsylvania. Although Pennsylvania doesn't border 
the Chesapeake, the Pennsylvania Susquehanna River is the bay's largest 
source of freshwater. Improving the health of the Chesapeake Bay 
requires a sustained, coordinated commitment from all of the States in 
the watershed. I have repeatedly written to the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture for increased funding and technical assistance for farmers 
in Pennsylvania so Pennsylvania can continue to improve the health of 
the Susquehanna River and the bay.
  Pennsylvania has made great strides in addressing the issue of 
nutrient and sediment runoff into the Chesapeake Bay, but there is more 
to be done, and Pennsylvania is far from meeting its 2005 Chesapeake 
Bay pollution reduction goals.
  Ensuring that all States in the watershed are coordinated and meeting 
their commitments is exactly the type of role the EPA should be 
filling. Mr. Pruitt called the EPA's Chesapeake Bay TMDL standard ``the 
culmination of the EPA's decade-long attempt to control exactly how 
States achieve federal water quality requirements under the Clean Water 
Act, and marks the beginning of the end of meaningful state 
participation in water pollution regulation.''
  Well, I disagree. We don't have time to outline all the reasons, but 
I strongly disagree with that assessment of the EPA's actions with 
regard to the Chesapeake Bay, but we do have a long way to go to make 
sure that we keep it clean. So on clean water, I think we have to 
insist that neither the EPA Administrator nor anyone in Congress does 
anything compromising when it comes to clean water.
  Climate change. This fall I had an opportunity to spend time in 
Pennsylvania with Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island, one of the 
leaders in the Senate on the issue of climate change. We did a tour, 
and one of the places we went was the John Heinz National Wildlife 
Refuge. It is America's first urban refuge named after one of my 
predecessors, Senator Heinz, who tragically died in 1991, but his work 
on the environment is remembered in places like this wildlife refuge. 
This is a public space that allows us to enjoy wildlife, outdoor 
recreation, and environmental education opportunities right outside of 
a major city--in this case, Philadelphia. And this refuge also plays a 
vital role in climate change resiliency.
  Marshes help to filter pollutants from water and can absorb water 
during heavy rain events, thus helping to reduce the magnitude of 
flooding. However, the refuge is facing a number of environmental 
stressors.
  Sea level rise could have serious consequences for this fresh water 
marsh. Not only would rising sea levels lead to the loss of undeveloped 
dry land and habitat for wildlife, but increased salinity could change 
the plant makeup of this marsh at the wildlife refuge.
  According to EPA, Pennsylvania's climate has warmed more than half a 
degree Fahrenheit in just the last century. Sea level has also risen 
nearly 1 foot over the past century, according to NOAA, measured by the 
tidal gauge in Philadelphia. That means that significant portions of 
the city of Philadelphia could be underwater, including the 
Philadelphia International Airport, if we fail to act.
  We know that 2016 was the warmest year on record for a third year in 
a row. Also, climate change is not some distant possibility in 
Pennsylvania or throughout the Nation; it is real, and we are already 
feeling the effects of climate change.
  I will close with one story from one mother who talks about air 
quality, or the impact of bad air quality and the issue of climate 
change itself. Jacqueline Smith-Spade, a mother from Philadelphia, 
recently wrote to me about her 6-year-old son Jonas's struggle with 
asthma and the emotional and financial toll it takes on her family:

       Every time there is an extreme or irregular climate shift, 
     I can pretty much predict that my son is going to end up in 
     the emergency room due to the effect of air quality.


[[Page 2813]]


  She goes on to say later in the letter:

       I routinely check the air quality to help predict what type 
     of day my son and my family might have: With or without 
     nebulizer?
       The physical toll on Jonas also creates a financial burden 
     on my family. The emergency visits cost $100 each time we go; 
     $30 copays for each specialist visit; $15 copays for each 
     pediatrician visit.

  She goes on to say:

       This is not cheap; however, my insurance greatly helps to 
     reduce the costs.

  She worries, of course, about what might happen on healthcare, but I 
will not read all of those portions.
  She concludes this part of the letter this way:

       A reduction in air pollution and climate change will make 
     life for my 7-year-old son, Jonas, much easier. His reactions 
     to those changes will be reduced. It will also save my family 
     countless dollars, stress, and panic attacks.

  So said one mom about her son Jonas.
  What we must do, and especially what Mr. Pruitt must do, were he to 
be confirmed, is to answer her questions--to answer her questions, 
Jacqueline's questions, and the concerns she has about her son Jonas. 
She is not only a taxpayer, but she is someone who will be impacted 
directly by the actions and the policies that come from this 
administration as well as the EPA itself.
  So I believe that Mr. Pruitt, if he were to be confirmed, must meet 
the expectations of Jonas and his mother. He works for them, or will 
work for them, were he to be confirmed.
  I know I am out of time. I will just conclude with this: There are a 
long series of reasons, some of which I wasn't able to get to today, 
that undergird and form the foundation of my decision not to support 
the nomination of Scott Pruitt as the next EPA Administrator.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.


                            Working Together

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today is February 16, 2017. President 
Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2017.
  For the past several weeks now, we have come to the floor and talked 
about the slow pace at which the Senate has considered and voted on the 
President's nominees for his Cabinet. Well, there is good reason for 
that because one of our roles is to consider and vote on advisers 
selected by the President, regardless of political party, and to help 
this new administration lead the country.
  President Obama, to his credit, after the election, sat down with 
President-Elect Trump and said he was committed to a peaceful 
transition of power from his administration to the Trump 
administration. But, apparently, some of our colleagues didn't get the 
memo. We continue to slog along at the slowest pace since George 
Washington to vote on nominees to the President's Cabinet.
  The reason it has gone on so slowly is clear by now. It is because 
our friends across the aisle are still upset and have not yet 
reconciled themselves with the results of the election on November 8. 
They just kind of can't get over it. Yes, they are being encouraged by 
the radical elements of their party who don't want us to fulfill our 
responsibilities, who don't want a new President to have the Cabinet 
that he needs in order to govern the country. Yes, there are some who 
want to halt our work in this Chamber and perpetuate dysfunction. They 
don't want us to focus on legislating because they want to keep us tied 
up in the confirmation process.
  I will just interject right here, as I have said before, that we know 
these nominees will be confirmed because, thanks to the nuclear option 
under Senator Reid, the previous Democratic leader, all it takes is 51 
votes to confirm a nominee to a Cabinet post. But the fact is, the 
country needs a functioning Senate. We need a functioning executive 
branch.
  So I hope our colleagues across the aisle will understand soon that 
if they want to be effective--if they want to actually move the needle 
and help those who have entrusted them with the future of this 
country--then we need to turn from gridlock to action.
  Last Congress, even under President Obama in the White House, we did 
not let partisan dysfunction keep us from working together. There is a 
difference between elections and governing. But, for some reason, too 
many people want to keep relitigating the election and not allow us to 
actually govern.
  Of course, during the Obama administration, Republicans had many 
points of departure from the Obama administration, and we used the 
tools available to us to provide the oversight and ask the critical 
questions that the American people demanded. But our friends across the 
aisle are now being tempted to shut down the government, to run away 
from policy debates, and point fingers. Why? Because it is always 
easier to throw stones than it is to actually accomplish something--
roll up your sleeves, focus on the task, and turn to legislating.
  Yes, it may be easier just to criticize and to obstruct, but it is 
not the right thing for the American people. Our colleagues across the 
aisle know that, but, as I said earlier, they are being unduly 
influenced by some of the radical elements in their political base who 
will not let them do it or who say that if you do cooperate on a 
bipartisan basis and actually do your job, then we are going to recruit 
people to run against you in a primary.
  Well, that is part of the risk we all take. We didn't come here to 
appease a portion of our political base and neglect our most basic 
duties as Members of the U.S. Senate. Again, I would point to last 
Congress and the work we did together on a bipartisan basis, I might 
add, as evidence of what you can accomplish when you try to do that.
  The 114th Congress, after the 2014 election, saw a new majority, a 
new Republican leadership, and we did our best to help restore order to 
this Chamber and get it working again after years of dysfunction. Under 
the previous regime, Members of both the majority and minority parties 
were actually prevented from coming to the floor and offering 
legislative ideas in the form of amendments and getting votes on them, 
but that backfired when some of our colleagues who were running for 
reelection in 2014 realized that they had very little to show the 
voters by way of accomplishment--even those in the majority party, the 
Democratic Party, at that time. So one would have thought that there 
would be some lessons learned there.
  In the last Congress--in the 114th Congress that began 2 years ago--
we voted on legislative ideas from both sides of the aisle with more 
than 250 rollcall votes. That represented a sea change from the 
previous administration and the way Senator Reid ran things.
  We were able to get the Senate functioning as the Founders intended, 
and that led to big results for the American people. We took care of 
big, intractable problems that had trouble getting anywhere during the 
previous Congresses. For example, we passed a transportation bill--the 
highway bill--to help Americans deal with safety on the roadway, to 
deal with concerns about pollution due to congestion and people in 
gridlock, and we helped our economy in the process. That was a big, 
important bill. That was the first time we had been able to pass a 
long-term highway bill in about 30 different, separate attempts where 
we had patched the funding mechanism for 6 months or a year, which made 
it nearly impossible for our highway departments across the country to 
actually plan. It actually ended up being more expensive and less 
effective than it would be with a multiyear highway bill, which we 
passed. So that was a big bipartisan accomplishment.
  We also made great progress in reforming our public education system 
by passing, again, on a bipartisan basis, the Every Student Succeeds 
Act, which went a long way to devolving power from here in Washington, 
DC, back to the States, back to local school districts, back to parents 
and teachers--something that, fortunately, we were able to agree upon 
on a bipartisan basis. That change was applauded by my constituents 
back home, and, I believe, people around the country.
  We also made great headway in making our country safer and our 
government more just by taking up and passing legislation to support 
victims of

[[Page 2814]]

abuse and violence and to craft laws to better equip our law 
enforcement to handle growing threats.
  For example, we passed the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act 99 
to 0. Some people say that nothing ever gets done in Washington; well, 
99 to 0--it is hard to beat that, except by maybe 100 to 0, but we will 
take it.
  That law was signed into law by President Obama 2 years ago, and it 
is helping victims of human trafficking get the healing and recovery 
they need, while also providing help to law enforcement to help root 
out the people who patronize modern day slavery, which is what human 
trafficking amounts to.
  We also, on a bipartisan basis, reauthorized the Justice for All Act 
to strengthen victims' rights in court and increase access to 
restitution and services that can help them recover. It helps reduce 
the national backlog in untested rape kits, forensic evidence collected 
after a sexual assault that is necessary to identify the assailant 
through the use of DNA testing. That was really important, after we 
heard the horror stories of as many as 400,000 untested rape kits in 
laboratories or evidence lockers--evidence which was critical to 
identifying the assailant; many times they were serial assailants. In 
other words, they didn't just attack one time, they attacked multiple 
times over the years--and to get them off the streets. That type of 
evidence is also very important in exonerating the innocent because if 
we can exclude someone from one of these terrible assaults, that means 
a person who is innocent of the crime will be free.
  We also passed a bill called the POLICE Act, signed into law last 
summer, so our first responders and law enforcement officers can learn 
the latest techniques to deal with violence so they are ready to face 
the unimaginable or previously unimaginable threats in our communities.
  I could go on and on, but I will just mention a few more. We passed 
bipartisan legislation to combat opioid abuse and heroin addiction, the 
Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. We passed laws to make our 
government more transparent so it is more accountable to the public and 
to voters. We helped capitalize on our God-given natural resources by 
lifting the crude oil export ban, for example--something important not 
only to domestic producers and job creation here but also to our 
friends and allies around the world who frequently depend on a single 
source for their energy. Unfortunately, people like Vladimir Putin in 
Russia have discovered you can use that sole source of energy as a 
weapon by threatening to cut it off.
  The reason I mention some of these accomplishments is to make the 
point that nothing happens in Congress, nothing happens in the Federal 
Government, unless it is bipartisan.
  It is one thing to fight hard in an election and try to win the 
election so you can gain the privilege of actually being in the 
majority or having the White House, but after the election is over, our 
responsibilities shift to governing. Right now, our friends across the 
aisle are continuing to obstruct and drag their feet and make it 
impossible for the President to get the Cabinet he needs in order to 
get the government up and running.
  We need to return to the pattern we established in the last Congress, 
to work together, to build consensus, to help make America stronger, 
our citizens safer, and our laws a better service to all the people. I 
would plead with our colleagues across the aisle to stop the 
dysfunction, stop wanting to relitigate the outcome of the election. 
You can't. It is over. We know what the outcome was. They need to move 
on, and we need to move on--not just for the political parties we are 
members of, not just for the benefit of those elected here in 
Washington but for the benefit of 320-some-odd million people whom we 
have the responsibility of representing. Instead of foot-dragging, 
obstruction, and dysfunction, let us fight, as we always have, for 
those people we represent and work together to find common ground where 
we can to put forward legislation that serves them well.
  I hope our colleagues across the aisle would remember those lessons 
they learned in the 2014 election; that dysfunction is bad politics. It 
does not help their political cause. I understand the temptation of 
wanting to yield to the most radical elements in a political party, but 
we are elected to the Senate for 6-year terms to be that cooling 
saucer, to try to have debate and deliberation, to try to work out the 
hard problems. That is our responsibility, and just to blindly obstruct 
when you know you can't change the outcome--particularly when it comes 
to the President getting the Cabinet he has chosen and he deserves--
makes no sense whatsoever.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.


                              Agriculture

  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, there are few things that I enjoy more 
than bragging about my hometown. I live in a little town called Yuma, 
CO, out in the Eastern Plains. It is a town of about 3,500 people. If 
maybe you overexaggerate a little bit, it reaches 4,000. It is out in 
the middle of the High Plains of Colorado, 4,000 feet in elevation, 40 
miles or so from the Kansas-Nebraska border. It is a farming community, 
100 percent farming. Everything related to the town is farming. Even 
the clothing stores are related to farming because if you don't have a 
strong agriculture economy, nobody is buying blue jeans, nobody is 
going up to the car dealership to buy a pickup if the bushel of corn 
isn't priced right. So everything we do in that town is related to 
agriculture and farming.
  My family comes from a background of farm equipment business and 
started a business--101 years old this year--by my great-grandfather. 
My time working in the dealership started roughly when I was in 
seventh, eighth grade. They let me do some very complicated tasks, 
high-skill tasks they let me perform: cleaning the bathroom, sweeping 
the floors. I did that throughout my time in eighth grade, high school, 
and college. If I go back today, I am sure they would let me do the 
same job, clean the bathrooms and sweep the floors. Part of that is 
because I was selling the wrong parts to a lot of farmers who would 
come into the dealership. Maybe they were just keeping me off the parts 
counter for the time being. In fact, maybe that is why people voted for 
me, to get me off the parts counter and quit selling the wrong parts.
  Over my time working at the dealership, we witnessed a lot of good 
times in agriculture. I can remember one time going into my dad's and 
granddad's office and saying: You know what, the economy is really 
good. The price of corn is really high right now. We ought to order a 
whole bunch of farm equipment--a whole bunch of pieces of implements, 
tillage equipment, tractors, combines--and have them on the lot so we 
can take advantage of the good times in agriculture.
  My granddad paused and looked at my dad and said: No, I don't think 
we should do that because I don't think times are going to be good next 
year.
  They were right. This was back in probably the mid-1990s. They had 
seen it coming because of their experience in the business, the ebbs 
and flows of agriculture, the good times and the bad times. They were 
able to recognize, through their own experience, what different 
economic indicators meant to them and how they could forecast, using 
their experience, what was going to happen in the farm world the next 
year. So they decided not to order all that brandnew equipment. They 
decided not to order the tractors, the combines, and the tillage 
equipment. It was a good thing because the next year wasn't that great. 
If this 18-year-old, 19-year-old kid would have had his way, we would 
have had a whole lot of iron we were paying interest on that year 
without being able to sell it.
  Colorado is pretty blessed, with 4,000 companies involved in 
agriculture, 173,000 jobs in Colorado directly involved in agriculture. 
The State has more than 35,000 farms and 31 million acres used for 
farming and ranching. If we look at the Colorado business economic 
outlook, the net farm income of

[[Page 2815]]

ranchers and farmers in 2016 is estimated this year to be the lowest it 
has been since 1986, and the projections for 2017 are even lower.
  I grew up as a kid in the 1980s, watching perhaps the hardest times 
agriculture in the United States had faced in decades, watching a lot 
of people I knew my whole life going out of business, people having to 
sell the farm because of what was happening in the 1980s, leading to a 
banking crisis in agriculture in the 1980s, watching banks I had grown 
up with close.
  I am concerned in this country that we are going to see the same 
thing again, beginning in 2016, into 2017, and then into 2018 next 
year. I am very worried that those tough times we saw in the 1980s, and 
some of the tough with the good times we saw in the 1990s, and some 
really good years a few years ago are going to seem like distant 
memories come later this summer and into next year if we don't do 
something.
  I had the opportunity to visit with the Colorado commissioner of 
agriculture in my office last week, a gentleman by the name of Don 
Brown. Don Brown is from my hometown of Yuma, CO. It has done pretty 
well for itself, 3,000 people. The State commissioner of agriculture is 
from my hometown. The previous commissioner of agriculture, a gentleman 
by the name of John Stoltz, was from my hometown of Yuma. Both of them 
grew up in agriculture in that area, understanding what it is like on 
the High Plains, understanding what it is like to live through good 
times and bad times. Both of them today I think would tell you, they 
are very concerned as well about what happens over the next year, the 
next 2 years.
  It wasn't that long ago when we saw some of the highest priced 
commodities this country has ever seen, at least in a very long time--
the golden years of agriculture, some people said--where corn and wheat 
were priced high. People were able to pay their bills and buy new 
equipment. Commodity prices don't always stay that high though. The one 
thing a farmer will tell you is, the price of a piece of farm equipment 
stays high, the price of fertilizer seems to stay high. When prices 
come down on their commodities, the other prices--the inputs--stay 
high, and they find themselves in significant trouble.
  The price of corn today is estimated to be about $3.15 per bushel. 
That is what it was in 2016, less than half of the 10-year high price 
of corn of $6.86 in 2012, just a few years ago. To put that in 
historical context, the price of corn in 2016 at $3.15 is lower than 
the price of corn in 1974, the year I was born, when it was $3.20. The 
price of corn in 2016 was 5 cents lower than it was the year I was 
born, 1974. It is the same story across the board for Colorado. Wheat 
prices are down more than $1 from 2015 to 2016 alone and down more than 
50 percent since 2012. I can guarantee, even though I may have sold a 
lot of wrong parts at the implement dealership, those wrong parts 
didn't come down in price 50 percent.
  The livestock industry has seen similar trends, with cattle prices at 
their lowest level since 2010. In farming and agriculture, a lot of 
times we might see a year where the price of corn is high, but the 
price of cattle is low or the price of other commodities are high where 
the price of cattle is low, but when cattle are high, maybe other 
commodities are low. Farmers who have a diverse operation are able to 
offset the lows and the highs with a diverse operation--but not this 
year, and it looks like that may be the case next year.
  Declines in States' agriculture economy are not unique to Colorado. 
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Economic Research 
Service, revenues have decreased for agriculture nationwide by more 
than 10 percent since 2014.
  Recently, the Wall Street Journal wrote this, and I will show the 
headline of the Wall Street Journal piece just a couple of weeks ago. 
The Wall Street has an article entitled ``The Next American Farm Bust 
Is Upon Us.''
  We have had a lot of debates on this floor. We have had debates about 
Cabinet members. We have had debates about resolutions of disapprovals. 
We are talking about a lot of things, but there is a lot of suffering 
beginning in the heartland of America right now. A lot of farmers and 
ranchers are suffering. They are worried about how they are going to 
survive, not just into the next year but how they are going to survive 
into the next couple of months. The telltale signs of difficult times 
are all around us in agriculture. This article, ``The Next American 
Farm Bust Is Upon Us,'' begins to tell the story. Here is what the Wall 
Street Journal said:

       The Farm Belt is hurtling toward a milestone: Soon there 
     will be fewer than two million farms in America for the first 
     time since pioneers moved westward after the Louisiana 
     Purchase.
       Across the heartland, a multiyear slump in prices for corn, 
     wheat and other farm commodities brought on by a glut of 
     grain world-wide is pushing many farmers further into debt. 
     Some are shutting down, raising concerns that the next few 
     years could bring the biggest wave of farm closures since the 
     1980s.

  The article highlights the story of a fifth-generation farmer from 
Western Kansas. I mentioned my hometown is 40 miles away from Kansas. 
It looks very similar to the Eastern Plains of Colorado where I live. 
Here is his story:

       From his father's porch, the 56-year-old can see the 
     windswept spot where his great-grandparents' sod house stood 
     in 1902 when they planted the first of the 1,200 acres on 
     which his family farms alfalfa, sorghum and wheat today. Even 
     after harvesting one of their best wheat crops ever last 
     year, thanks to plentiful rain and a mild winter, Mr. Scott 
     isn't sure how long they can afford to keep farming that 
     ground.

  There is a lot of work we need to do to make sure Mr. Scott and 
farmers who live in my community around the Eastern and Western Slope 
of Colorado will be able to survive over the next year--steps so we can 
help to make sure we are addressing this crisis head-on, before it 
begins and develops into a full-blown farm crisis like we saw in the 
1980s. We must have serious regulatory reform.
  In a letter I received from the Colorado Farm Bureau, the letter 
read:

       Colorado Farm Bureau recognizes that a major impediment to 
     the success of American agricultural industries and the 
     national economy is rampant federal regulation and the 
     associated cost of compliance.

  We have to allow U.S. agriculture to flow to markets around the 
world, so in addition to that regulatory reform--some of which we are 
undertaking now through resolutions of disapproval by peeling back the 
overreach of government, we have to allow farmers access to more 
markets. That is a concern we all should share: What is going to happen 
with our trade policy in this country? Because if we decide to shut off 
trade in this country, if we decide to close access and avenues to new 
markets, the first people who are going to be hurt are those farmers 
and ranchers in Colorado and Kansas and throughout the Midwest of the 
United States. We have to have the opportunity to be able to send that 
bushel of wheat to Asia, that bushel of corn around the globe to make 
sure we are providing value-added opportunities for the world's best 
farmers and ranchers. Opening up new markets for Colorado and American 
agriculture is a clear way we can support rural economies.
  Let's be clear. What I said at the beginning of these comments--there 
are farm communities that have diversity in their economic 
opportunities. A farm economy may not be 100 percent dependent on farms 
or ranches. Maybe they have tourism. Maybe they have some recreational 
opportunities. Maybe they are close to a big city where people can live 
there and commute. But there are a lot of towns across the United 
States that are solely, 100 percent committed to agriculture. They 
don't have access to anything but farming and ranching. When the price 
is down, the town is down. When the town is down, Main Street erodes. 
When Main Street erodes, it affects our schools and our hospitals and 
our relationships and our families. And somebody has to be looking out 
for our farmers and ranchers because the next American farm bust is 
upon us.
  We have to take the necessary steps to pass a farm bill that gets our 
policies right when the new one expires. The current one expires in 
2016, and these discussions are just now underway. If we have 
regulatory reform, if

[[Page 2816]]

we open up new trade opportunities for agriculture and we give farmers 
certainty--those are three things we can do to help address this crisis 
before it becomes a full-blown crisis.
  We have to make sure that we support our farmers and ranchers, that 
we have their backs in good times and in bad times. Giving farmers 
certainty through a farm bill, through a regulatory landscape that 
provides certainty and relief, is important.
  I talked to a family member of mine the other day who talks about his 
fear that he sees conditions similar to what we saw in the 1980s. The 
final relief we can provide is relief from financial regulations that 
are stifling the ability of banks to provide workout opportunities for 
farmers and ranchers when they need it.
  Four things we ought to be doing for our farmers and ranchers: 
provide them certainty, regulatory relief, new trade opportunities, and 
targeted financial relief on regulations that are preventing workouts 
through our banks and our communities.
  We have the opportunity now to prevent this country from seeing what 
it saw in the 1980s, but let's not be reactionary. Let's do what we can 
to get ahead of this before we start seeing what Secretary-designee 
Perdue told me the other day. One of the customers of his agricultural 
business took his life because he didn't know what was going to happen 
to his farm, and his three kids are now left wondering what they are 
going to do.
  I hope this country understands how supportive we are of American 
agriculture and the actions we need to take to stand with them when 
times get tough.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I take this time to explain to my 
colleagues why I will be opposing the nomination of Scott Pruitt, the 
attorney general of Oklahoma, to be the next Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  I first want to start by saying I had an opportunity to visit with 
Attorney General Pruitt. He is a person who wants to serve our country, 
and we very much appreciate that. He has a distinguished career in 
public service, and we appreciate his willingness to continue to serve 
at the national level.
  My reason for opposing his nomination is that he has opposed most of 
the missions of the Environmental Protection Agency as the attorney 
general of Oklahoma. He has filed numerous lawsuits that would 
compromise the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to 
protect our environment.
  I come to this debate acknowledging that there are national 
responsibilities to protect our environment. The United States must 
also be engaged in global leadership as it relates to our environment. 
The people of Maryland want clean air. The people of Maryland want 
clean water. No State can guarantee to its citizens that its air will 
be clean or that its water will be safe. These issues go well beyond 
State boundaries. They go beyond national boundaries. It is for that 
reason that we need an Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency who will lead our Nation both in the appropriate controls and 
regulations to protect our air and water but also work for our country 
in regard to the global efforts to protect our environment for future 
generations.
  Let me talk about the issue of climate change. Climate change is one 
of the greatest threats of our times. We know that this year, according 
to NASA--they looked at the temperature rise in 2016 and found it to be 
the hottest year ever recorded. We know something is happening in 
regard to global climate change. It is affecting so many different 
areas. We have eroding shorelines that our constituents see. We have 
major military installations located along our coast that are at risk 
as a result of rising sea levels from ice melt. We have populations 
that are at risk in the United States.
  Let me give one example, if I might. Smith Island, MD, is a very 
proud community. It is a community that historically has been one of 
the strongest in regard to watermen and dealing with the fruits of the 
Chesapeake Bay. It is a proud community, and it is in danger of 
disappearing because we have sea level rises resulting from ice melting 
from climate change. We know there is a problem developing that we need 
to deal with. It is affecting our economy.
  In my State of Maryland, the seafood industry is concerned about the 
future of the blue crab crop. They know that juvenile crabs need sea 
grass in order to be able to be protected and mature into full-blown 
blue crabs. With water becoming warmer, the future of sea grass is 
challenged, putting the blue crab at risk.
  That is just one example. There are many more examples I can give 
about how it is affecting the economy of my State. It is affecting our 
ability to enjoy our environment, the recreation itself, and it is 
certainly providing a real risk in regard to the real estate. We have 
some very nice real estate located right on the coast or on barrier 
islands that is at risk of being lost as a result of climate change. We 
see more and more major weather events occur on a much more regular 
basis, causing billions of dollars of damage and putting lives at risk.
  We know climate change is here. It is happening. The science is 
pretty clear. When we asked Attorney General Pruitt his view about the 
science of climate change, his answer was ``far from settled.''
  The science is well understood. What we do here on Earth--the release 
of carbon emissions--is causing an abnormal warming of our climate. 
There are activities that we can do to reduce that effect on our 
climate. We know that. That is what science tells us. We know we can 
affect the adverse impacts of climate change if we take action. That is 
what scientists are telling us.
  The world came together on this issue in COP21. I was proud to head a 
delegation of 10 Members of the U.S. Senate as we went to Paris to make 
it clear to the international community that the United States wanted 
to be part of a global solution to climate change. Not any one country 
can reverse the trendline that we are on that is catastrophic; we need 
all nations to do everything they can to reduce the impact of climate 
change by reducing their carbon and greenhouse emissions. That is what 
the global community needs to do, but we have been unable to get the 
global community for all countries to live up to their 
responsibilities.
  Under President Obama and our leadership, we were able to get the 
world community--over 190 nations--to come together in Paris, in COP21, 
for every nation to take responsibility to reduce their carbon 
emissions so that we all can benefit from that effort.
  I am concerned as to whether Mr. Pruitt, if confirmed as the EPA 
Administrator, will continue that U.S. leadership. He has not been at 
all committed to U.S. programs on dealing with climate change, let 
alone our international responsibilities to lead other countries to do 
what they need to do. I will give one example. Part of our way of 
showing the international community that we are serious about the 
climate issue was the powerplant rule issued under the Obama 
administration. Attorney General Pruitt joined a group in opposing that 
powerplant rule through filing suit against the implementation of that 
particular law.
  We need someone who is going to lead on this effort in America and 
understand that we have responsibilities to lead the international 
community. We are at great risk from the impact of climate change, and 
that needs to be understood and recognized by the leader of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I am not convinced Attorney General 
Pruitt would do that.
  I want to talk a little bit about clean air. Maryland has taken 
pretty aggressive steps to improve the air quality from emissions 
within the geographical boundary of the State of Maryland. That is what 
every State should do. But here is the challenge: Maryland is downwind 
from many other States' emissions, so we are seeing days in which our 
air quality is below what it should be, not because we haven't taken 
action but because we don't have a national policy to protect our clean 
air.

[[Page 2817]]

  The health of Marylanders depends on the Federal Government being 
aggressive in guaranteeing that all citizens of this country--that 
steps are taken to protect the air they breathe. I can tell you the 
number of children who have asthma who suffer when the air quality is 
not what it should be. It is not only wrong from the point of view that 
we have an obligation to our children to make sure we give them the 
healthiest air to breathe, it is also costing our economy because every 
day that child stays home, a parent cannot go to work. The child loses 
their time in school; they are being disadvantaged. If they have to 
take a day off from summer camp, the parent has to stay home, and it is 
wasting resources in this country.
  For many reasons, we need an Administrator of the EPA who is 
committed to a national effort to make sure the air we breathe is clean 
and healthy.
  Likewise with clean water. Some of us remember when the Cuyahoga 
River caught fire in 1969. We know that pollution was so bad, you 
literally could set our rivers afire. We took steps. And it was not 
partisan--Democrats and Republicans came together with the Clean Water 
Act. We recognized that the Federal Government has the responsibility 
to protect the quality of our water so that we have safe, clean water 
in America.
  I think we have been working to improve the Clean Water Act 
consistently on a nonpartisan basis, but now we have Supreme Court 
decisions that challenge what water the Federal Government can 
regulate. Congress has not taken steps to clarify that. The 
administration took efforts to try to clarify that under the waters of 
the United States, only to see a Court action to put that on hold in 
which Mr. Pruitt joined as the attorney general of Oklahoma, once again 
slowing down our effort to protect the clean waters of America.
  I have spoken numerous times on the floor of the Congress about the 
Chesapeake Bay and how proud I am to be a Senator from Maryland, one of 
the six States that are in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, along with the 
District of Columbia.
  We know that the Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure. It has been 
so designated by many Presidents of the United States. It is the latest 
estuary in our hemisphere. The watershed contains 64,000 square miles, 
has over 11,000 miles of shoreline, and 17 million people live in the 
Chesapeake Bay watershed--150 major rivers, $1 trillion to our economy. 
It is part of the heritage of my State and our region. We are proud 
that it is part of our life. It is part of why people like to live in 
this region. They know the Chesapeake Bay makes their life so much more 
enriched and so much more valuable.
  The Chesapeake Bay is in trouble. I could talk about it from a 
technical point of view. It doesn't flush itself as quickly as other 
water bodies. The historic oyster population is not what it has been. 
We have to, therefore, make special efforts to clean up the Chesapeake 
Bay. Over 30 years ago, almost 40 years now, while I was in the State 
legislature, when I was speaker of the house, I worked with Governor 
Harry Hughes, and we developed a State program to deal with the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  We did it the right way. We started at the local levels. We got all 
the stakeholders together: the farmers, the developers, the local 
governments, the private sector, our local governments, the State 
government. We worked with Pennsylvania because Pennsylvania is where 
the Susquehanna River flows, and that produces most of the fresh water 
that goes into the Chesapeake Bay. We worked with Delaware, Virginia, 
New York, and West Virginia, and we developed the Chesapeake Bay 
Program that is worked from the local level up. We get together to 
determine what is reasonable: What does science tell us we can do?
  We have all the stakeholders sitting around the table as we develop 
these plans. They all sign up. Our farmers recognize that clean water 
will make their agriculture more profitable. They recognize that. 
Developers understand that we need a clean Chesapeake Bay as part of 
our ability to develop profitable real estate in our community. These 
are not inconsistent. A serene environment, clean agriculture, a strong 
agriculture, a strong economy are all hand in hand together.
  It is not a choice between one or the other. We recognize that. That 
is why the Chesapeake Bay Program has never been partisan in Maryland. 
We have had Democratic and Republican Governors who supported the 
Chesapeake Bay Program. We have had legislators lead this effort from 
both parties. Senator Mac Mathias, who served as the U.S. Senator from 
Maryland, was the champion of bringing the Federal Government into the 
Chesapeake Bay Program. The program is working. It is making the bay 
safer today, but we still have a long way to go.
  We enforce it through the TMDL, the Total Maximum Daily Loads, so we 
can monitor that we are making the progress we said we could make, 
based upon best science. And that is what the local stakeholders have 
signed up for.
  When we did our TMDL's, it was challenged. It was challenged in the 
courts. Mr. Pruitt was one of those who brought a challenge against the 
TMDL Program in Maryland. I am thankful that the Third Circuit upheld 
the legal right of the TMDL, and the Supreme Court affirmed that 
decision by the Third Circuit. So we won the legal case.
  But it troubles me that a program that is from the ground up, from 
the local governments up, in which the Federal government is a 
partner--why it would be challenged when it was supported by the local 
communities. To me, that case should never have been challenged.
  We need the Federal Government to continue to participate with us. 
The Chesapeake Bay Program is supported through the farm bill, through 
the Water Resources Development Act, through the Clean Water Act, and 
through annual appropriations. So we need continued support at the 
Federal level for the Chesapeake Bay Program. And we need a champion in 
the Environmental Protection Agency that will help us in that regard.
  I want to talk briefly about the Safe Drinking Water Act. Safe 
drinking water is critically important. We know that in recent years, 
we have found too much lead in drinking water. We all know, of course, 
the story of Flint, MI. I could take you to Baltimore where our schools 
have to cut off their water fountains because of the unsafe levels of 
lead in the drinking water, if they were permitted to drink from the 
water fountains.
  We can tell you about so many communities in the Nation that have a 
desperate need to clean up their safe drinking water so that we can 
protect our children from lead poisoning. I hope my colleagues 
understand that there is no safe level of lead in the blood. It robs 
children of their future. It poisons them. I think most people are 
familiar with the Freddie Gray tragedy in Baltimore. Freddie Gray was a 
victim of lead poisoning when he was young.
  We owe it to our children to make sure we do everything we can so 
they are not exposed to lead. I asked questions about that during the 
confirmation hearing of Mr. Pruitt. The answers were less than 
acceptable and showed his lack of real information about the dangers of 
lead.
  Every Congress should look at their responsibility to build on the 
record, to leave a cleaner and safer environment for the next 
generation. The EPA Administrator should be committed to that goal. I 
do not believe Mr. Pruitt will be that type of leader. For that reason, 
I will vote against his confirmation.
  With that, 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.
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                              Immigration

  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. President, I rise today, humbled to offer my first 
official speech as the junior U.S. Senator

[[Page 2818]]

from the great State of California. I rise with a deep sense of 
reverence for this institution, for its history, and for its unique 
role as the defender of our Nation's ideals.
  Above all, I rise today with a sense of gratitude for all those upon 
whose shoulders we stand. For me, it starts with my mother Shyamala 
Harris. She arrived at the University of California, Berkeley, from 
India in 1959 with dreams of becoming a scientist. The plan, when she 
finished school, was to go back home to a traditional Indian marriage. 
But when she met my father Donald Harris, she made a different plan. 
She went against a practice reaching back thousands of years, and 
instead of an arranged marriage, she chose a love marriage. This act of 
self-determination made my sister Maya and me, and it made us 
Americans, like millions of children of immigrants before and since.
  I know she is looking down on us today, and knowing my mother, she is 
probably saying: Kamala, what on Earth is going on down there? We have 
to stand up for our values.
  So in the spirit of my mother, who was always direct, I cannot mince 
words. In the early weeks of this administration, we have seen an 
unprecedented series of Executive actions that have hit our immigrant 
and religious communities like a cold front, striking a chilling fear 
in the hearts of millions of good, hard-working people, all by 
Executive fiat.
  By fiat, we have seen the President stick taxpayers with a bill for a 
multibillion-dollar border wall, without regard to the role of the U.S. 
Congress under article 1 of the Constitution. By fiat, we have seen a 
President mandate the detention of immigrants, both documented and 
undocumented, creating a dragnet that could ensnare 8 million people. 
By fiat, the President has ordered the creation of what essentially 
will be a 15,000-member deportation force. By fiat, he wants to take 
away State and local authority by making local police officers act as 
Federal immigration officials. By fiat, the President wants to slam the 
gates of freedom by instituting a Muslim ban--a ban which was as 
carelessly written as it has been incompetently enforced.
  In recent days, we have seen an increased severity in immigration 
raids sweeping across this country, including the arrest of a DREAMer 
in Seattle and a domestic violence victim in Texas. And we have seen an 
administration violate court orders, attack the First Amendment, bully 
Federal judges, and mock Americans exercising their right to freely 
assemble.
  I rise today to discuss how these actions impact my State of 
California and our country. In particular, the State of California, I 
believe, is a microcosm of who we are as America. In California, we 
have farmers and environmentalists, welders and technologists, 
Republicans, Democrats, Independents, and the largest number of 
immigrants, documented and undocumented, of any State in the Nation.
  I rise because the President's actions have created deep uncertainty 
and pain for our refugee and immigrant communities. I rise on behalf of 
California's more than 250,000 DREAMers, who were told by the Federal 
Government: If you sign up, we will not use your personal information 
against you. I rise to say the United States of America cannot go back 
on our promise to these kids and their families.
  I rise today as a lifelong prosecutor and as the former top cop of 
the biggest State in this country to say that these Executive actions 
present a real threat to our public safety. Let me repeat that: The 
President's immigration actions and Muslim ban will make America less 
safe.
  As a prosecutor, I can tell you it is a serious mistake to conflate 
criminal justice policy with immigration policy, as if they are the 
same thing. They are not. I have personally prosecuted everything from 
low-level offenses to homicides. I know what a crime looks like, and I 
will tell you, an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal. But that is 
what these actions do; they suggest all immigrants are criminals and 
treat immigrants like criminals.
  There is no question, those who commit crimes must face severe and 
serious and swift consequence and accountability. But the truth is, the 
vast majority of the immigrants in this country are hard-working people 
who deserve a pathway to citizenship.
  Instead of making us safer, these increased raids and Executive 
orders instill fear in immigrants who are terrified they will be 
deported or have to give up information resulting in the deportation of 
their family members. For this reason, studies have shown Latinos are 
more than 40 percent less likely to call 9-1-1 when they have been a 
victim of crime. This climate of fear drives people underground and 
into the shadows, making them less likely to report crimes against 
themselves or others--fewer victims reporting crime and fewer witnesses 
coming forward.
  These Executive actions create a strain on local law enforcement. Any 
police chief in this country will tell you that they barely have enough 
resources to get their job done. So when you make local law enforcement 
do the job of the Federal Government, you strain the resources for 
local law enforcement and that hurts everybody's safety.
  Let's consider the economic harm this order will cause. Immigrants 
make up 10 percent of California's workforce and contribute $130 
billion to our State's gross domestic product. Immigrants own small 
businesses, they till the land, they care for children and the elderly, 
they work in our labs, they attend our universities, and they serve in 
our military. So these actions are not only cruel, but they cause 
ripple effects that harm our public safety and our economy.
  The same is true of this Muslim ban. This ban may as well have been 
hatched in the basement headquarters of ISIS. We handed them a tool of 
recruitment to use against us. Policies that demonize entire groups of 
people based on the God they worship have a way of conjuring real-life 
demons. Policies that isolate our Muslim-American communities take away 
one of the greatest weapons we have in the fight against homegrown 
extremism.
  Here is the truth. Imperfect though we may be, I believe we are a 
great country. I believe we are a great country. Part of what makes us 
great are our democratic institutions that protect our fundamental 
ideals: freedom of religion and the rule of law, protection from 
discrimination based on national origin, freedom of the press, and a 
200-year history as a nation built by immigrants.
  So this brings me to my message today. We have a responsibility to 
draw a line with these administrative actions and say no. This is not a 
question of party. This is about the government of coequal branches, 
with its inherent checks and balances. This is about the role of the 
Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world. I know, having 
spent now a few weeks in this Chamber, that we have good men and women 
on both sides of the aisle--men and women who believe deeply in our 
immigrant communities and who understand that nationalism and 
patriotism are not the same thing.
  I know that it was the junior Senator from the State of Texas who 
said: ``It is an enormous blessing to be the child of an immigrant who 
fled oppression, because you realize how fragile liberty is and how 
easily it can be taken away.''
  It was the junior Senator from the great State of Kentucky who said: 
``We must always embrace individual liberty and enforce the 
constitutional rights of all Americans, rich and poor, immigrants and 
natives, black and white.''
  It was the senior Senator from the great State of Arizona who said: 
Undocumented immigrants should not be ``condemned forever'' to a 
twilight status.
  So, yes, we have good people on both sides of the aisle. I say that 
we must measure up to our words and fight for our ideals because the 
critical hour is upon us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma


                     Congratulating Senator Harris

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say that that was an excellent 
presentation by Senator Harris. I can recall

[[Page 2819]]

when she first came here, and I sat down with her and we talked about 
her predecessor and about how people with diverse philosophies can get 
along and actually love each other.
  I would expect the same thing to happen in this case--because it 
does. I listened to some of the things that were said by the new 
Senator from California, talking about the rule of law, about freedom 
of religion, freedom of speech, and the First Amendment. I agree. I am 
hoping that we end up with more things in common than things that would 
keep us apart because we have a lot to do. We need to get busy doing 
it. I appreciate very much hearing the opening speech by Senator 
Harris.
  Mr. President, I wanted to get to the floor because it won't be long 
until we will be voting on my Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt. 
I am looking forward to it. He and I go back a long way. I know that he 
has been through the ringer, as a lot of them have. I look at Jeff 
Sessions and some of the abusive things that were said about him during 
the time that he was going through this process. Of course, the same 
thing has been true with Scott Pruitt.
  Scott Pruitt just happens to be not only a candidate who is going to 
make an excellent Administrator of the EPA, but he is also one who 
knows the job. He has been there. He has been attorney general for 
Oklahoma, my State. He lives in my home town of Tulsa, OK. So I know 
him quite well. In fact, I am in aviation, and I remember flying him 
around the State in some areas, introducing him when he was just 
starting out in the statewide race.
  I think he is going to do a really good job. It is my understanding 
that my colleagues on the other side are determined to run the clock 
before we vote on Attorney General Pruitt, and they are using the 
opportunity to make the case that he will destroy the environment and 
return pollution to the air and water.
  Yet they know that he will do nothing of the sort. Attorney General 
Pruitt is highly qualified. Yes, it is true that he has had the 
occasion to file lawsuits on behalf of the State of Oklahoma against 
the Environmental Protection Agency. I can assure you that he knows 
that he has represented the State of Oklahoma. There are many other 
States that were doing the same thing.
  He is a believer in the rule of law and will uphold the laws as 
passed by Congress within constitutional bounds. He has built a career 
defending the law, and I see no cause for concern that he will ever 
stop. He has been practicing law in Oklahoma since 1993, when he 
graduated from law school at the University of Tulsa. In 1998, he ran 
and was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate, where he served for 6 
years. During that time in the Oklahoma State Senate, he was seen as a 
leader, someone who could be counted upon, and someone who should be in 
higher office in the State.
  Of course, that is what happened. Since 2010, he has been the 
Attorney General for Oklahoma. He became a respected defender of the 
State's role in our Federal system of government. As EPA Administrator, 
Pruitt will continue to uphold core constitutional principles and won't 
be engaged in the same Federal overreach that we have seen over the 
last 8 years.
  I know there are varying philosophies in this body. I know there are 
people who want to concentrate the power in Washington. They see 
nothing wrong with what we refer to as governmental overreach. I have 
experienced this because it happens that I was the chairman, as well as 
the ranking member, of the Environment and Public Works Committee, 
which has the jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency. So 
I have watched this take place.
  I know that there are members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee who have differing philosophies as to what the EPA should be 
doing. They see outsiders. They see the State, sometimes, as someone 
who is opposed to the things they are trying to do. But we have watched 
this happen over the last 8 years.
  Attorney General Pruitt has said again and again that he will uphold 
the laws that we pass right here in Congress--no more and no less. So 
it is up to us as lawmakers to provide him with effective bipartisan 
legislation that will make a positive difference for the environment 
and for our future, while balancing State and private interests. This 
balance is possible and Scott Pruitt is a testament to this balance.
  Oklahoma is an energy State. Oklahoma is an agricultural State. We 
care a great deal about the land we live on and the air we breathe, and 
we want to be sure it is safe for our families and for generations to 
come. I think about the Administrator that was there during the years 
of the Obama administration, and he was actually in a hearing just a 
few hours ago. He talked about how comforting it was to come to our 
State of Oklahoma--which he did twice. He learned that landowners are 
on the side of the environment. They are the ones who want to care for 
the land. They are the ones who want to exert whatever energies are 
necessary to take care of the problems with pollution that are present 
in this world.
  As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has worked closely with the Oklahoma 
Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources 
Board to protect Oklahoma's scenic rivers from upstream pollution. As a 
matter of fact, as to his reputation, he is ``Mr. Scenic Rivers'' back 
in Oklahoma. I don't understand how people concerned with the 
environment are opposing him and saying things about him that are 
detrimental.
  He was able to use unbiased logic and science to reach an agreement 
with the State of Arkansas to protect our water in Oklahoma. He has 
also been instrumental in negotiating a historic water settlement 
agreement. This agreement was between the State of Oklahoma, the 
Choctaw Nation, and the Chickasaw Nation.
  This thing, I say to the Presiding Officer, has been in litigation 
for 100 years. He walked in, and he resolved the problem. It was a 
battle that had gone on for 100 years. One of the chief concerns of the 
Chickasaw and the Choctaw Nations was to ensure that conservation 
guidelines were preserved. The agreement not only provides Oklahoma 
City with its long-term water needs but also protects our two Indian 
nations with their conservation goals. Again, this was tried by a lot 
of people over a period of 100 years until Scott Pruitt came along. He 
is the one who did it.
  He has sued the EPA and fought against the Fish and Wildlife Service 
at times. It has all been in Oklahoma's best interest. Now he will have 
the entire Nation's best interest in mind when making decisions as the 
EPA Administrator. I have no doubt that he will continue to protect our 
State's interests from overreach and unnecessary harmful regulations.
  It is no secret that Attorney General Pruitt's confirmation process 
has been unusually lengthy. It is time we vote to confirm him in this 
position. We had his nomination hearing in the Environment and Public 
Works Committee. That was back on January 18, almost a month ago. That 
hearing was one to be remembered because we broke a record by asking 4 
rounds of questions. I suggest that no one in this confirmation process 
this year or in the last three generations has had to undergo four 
rounds of questions.
  During the course of this day-long, 8-hour hearing, he answered more 
than 200 questions. Now, after this, he responded to more than 1,000 
questions for the record, including the extra questions Senator Carper 
asked him in a December 28 letter, as Attorney General Pruitt promised 
he would.
  Now, this means that he answered--these are questions for the 
record--1,600 questions. The average director, during confirmation over 
the last 3 Presidential years, had 200. So it is 200 questions, as 
opposed to 1,600 questions that he was subjected to. He never 
complained about it and actually did a great job.
  Now, despite the Democrats' efforts to delay his confirmation vote, 
we need to be responsible and move forward to confirm Attorney General 
Pruitt. The longer we postpone this vote, the

[[Page 2820]]

longer it is going to take for things to get done at the EPA. Right now 
nothing can get done. Everyone knows that. That is wrong. I know that 
Attorney General Pruitt will continue to be a champion for economic 
development and environmental responsibility by upholding the law and 
restoring the Environmental Protection Agency to its role as a 
regulatory agency, not an activist organization.
  You know, this is all for show because everybody knows the votes are 
there. He is going to be approved. I look forward to working with him. 
I think he is ready now to move in and do the job. It is going to be a 
while before he is able to get the other positions confirmed. That is 
why it is important to go ahead and do it, and I understand we are 
going to be doing it when this time runs out.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time I have to 
Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the 
nomination of Scott Pruitt to serve as the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency, 
or EPA, is tasked with protecting human health and the environment, 
including our precious air, land, and water. This is clearly one of the 
most critical missions in the Federal Government.
  Americans believe that a great country deserves safe drinking water, 
clean air, and to know that the products we use are safe. And Americans 
care about continuing this legacy for future generations, believing 
that we should leave the environment in good shape or better than we 
found it, and that is where the EPA comes in.
  Before the Agency was created in 1970, a hodgepodge of inconsistent 
State and city regulations proved to be inadequate for protecting the 
right of Americans to have a clean, safe environment. Before the EPA, 
in some cities in this country, the air was so polluted that during the 
day, drivers could barely see the car in front of them. Studies 
indicate that the air in the 1950s in Los Angeles, as measured by 
particulate matter and ozone pollution, was worse than it is in Beijing 
today. Our rivers, including the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, caught 
fire. Schools were built on toxic chemical dumps. I know the thought of 
public health risks like these sound preposterous today, but this was 
all the case back before the EPA. It took parents and regular citizens 
standing up and demanding better to finally force action. In 1970, 
President Richard Nixon and a Democratic Congress worked in a 
bipartisan manner to create the EPA.
  Let me be clear. The EPA is not perfect. There are many instances 
when I have stood up to the Agency because I felt its actions were not 
in the best interests of Minnesotans. That said, since the creation of 
the Agency, the EPA has significantly improved our public health and 
our environment by cleaning up our air and cleaning up our water.
  We still have a lot of work left to do. Yet we are now faced with a 
President and an EPA nominee who want to gut the Agency and reverse the 
progress we have made. President Trump has repeatedly attacked 
environmental protections and the EPA. He has called to ``get rid of'' 
the Agency. And during an interview with FOX News, Candidate Trump said 
of the EPA: ``What they do is a disgrace.'' And now he is in a position 
to try to implement his stated goal of gutting the EPA--gutting the 
EPA, that is right. He wants to slash critical public health and 
environmental safeguards, and to do this, he handpicked Mr. Pruitt.
  Mr. Pruitt intends to prevent the EPA from protecting public health 
and the environment by reducing the budget by two-thirds. Trump 
transition team member Myron Ebell made these plans clear. Mr. Pruitt 
will cut and then cut some more and then cut some more, until the 
Agency we trust to keep us safe is no bigger than it was when Richard 
Nixon was President.
  So what exactly should we cut? Which aspect of public health and our 
environment is in need of less protection and research? Well, let me 
tell you about some of the things the EPA has accomplished since its 
creation.
  The EPA helps protect us from toxins. From 1948 to 1988, 30 million 
homes were treated for termite infestation with two related, very 
longlasting chemicals: heptachlor and chlordane. These chemicals are 
among the 12 worst known persistent organic pollutants--a rogues' 
gallery called the dirty dozen. A long-term study found that millions 
of Americans have these chemicals in their blood and in their fat and 
that the higher the levels, the more likely a person is to suffer from 
dementia, type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer, testicular cancer, breast 
cancer, or lymphoma.
  The problems arising from heptachlor and chlordane are still with us, 
but at least they are not getting worse. Why? Because hard work by EPA 
scientists helped expose the risks of these chemicals and led them to 
be banned in the United States in 1988. The world didn't catch up to 
the protection offered to the American people by our EPA until an 
international ban came into effect in 2001.
  The Agency also determined that lead in our paint and lead in our gas 
caused terrible public health problems, and they got the lead out. In 
the 1970s, 88 percent of American children had elevated levels of lead 
in their blood. Now the number is less than 1 percent.
  However, we know that the battle against old toxins is far from over, 
as the disastrous lead poisoning in Flint, MI, tragically reminds us. 
We also know that new risks appear every year. That is why Congress 
recently passed bipartisan legislation to allow the EPA to take action 
on the most concerning toxic chemicals, including asbestos. Slashing 
the EPA budget endangers future progress and will not make us better 
off, will not make us safer, will not make our children safer.
  The EPA has also made our air cleaner. Thanks to the EPA, we have 
reduced air pollution--like smog and ozone and particulate matter--by 
more than 70 percent since 1970, thus preventing millions of asthma 
attacks, hospital visits, lost workdays, and more than 100,000 
premature deaths every year. At the same time, the American economy has 
grown 240 percent.
  The Agency was also instrumental in the phaseout of harmful 
substances responsible for depleting the ozone layer. The ozone layer 
shields us from harmful ultraviolet radiation that leads to sunburns 
or, worse, skin cancer. Thanks to the work of the EPA and other Federal 
agencies in cooperation with the international community, ozone 
depletion has now stopped and the layer has begun to regenerate.
  The EPA has also made our water cleaner. The Agency invests billions 
in drinking and wastewater infrastructure every year through the Clean 
Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. These funds are 
particularly important to rural communities.
  What is more, the EPA is actually saving consumers money. Take the 
fuel efficiency standards that require car companies to manufacture 
vehicles that go farther on a gallon of gas. These standards both 
reduce air pollution and save people money. Thanks in part to the EPA, 
from 1975 to 2013, the average fuel economy of a car sold in the United 
States more than doubled. Further increases in fuel economy standards 
under the Obama administration mean that if you buy a new car, you can 
expect to save an average of $7,300 on gas during the lifetime of that 
vehicle. As a whole, Americans will save $1.7 trillion at the pump.
  This is just a small subset of what the EPA has accomplished over the 
years to protect public health and the environment. And I didn't even 
mention cleaning up toxic waste sites or testing foreign products for 
lead and mercury. But if Mr. Pruitt is confirmed to lead the EPA, all 
this progress and continued work is at risk.
  As the attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt put the will of his 
corporate donors above the public interest time and time again, suing 
the Agency 18 times--suing the EPA 18

[[Page 2821]]

times--to block clean air and clean water protections. Now Mr. Pruitt 
wants to run the EPA, but he refuses to say that he will permanently 
recuse himself from those lawsuits that are still pending. Thus, he 
would be both the defendant and plaintiff in those cases. This is a 
bizarre world nomination. We cannot allow this type of conflict of 
interest at the EPA.
  As attorney general, he failed to take environmental protections 
seriously. He dismantled the environmental protection unit within the 
AG's office, and in particular Mr. Pruitt's record shows a disdain for 
protecting the air we breathe. He filed three lawsuits to block EPA 
health standards for smog, soot, mercury, arsenic, lead, and other air 
pollutants. His actions directly threaten those who suffer from asthma 
and other lung conditions. We can't go back to the air we had in the 
1970s. We can't afford the air Beijing has today.
  Mr. Pruitt is so ideologically driven to protect the interests of 
oil, gas, and other polluters that he even gets in the way of clean 
energy projects that would create jobs. Take for example the Plains & 
Eastern Clean Line, a high-voltage transmission project that President 
Trump has identified as an infrastructure priority. It will bring clean 
wind power from the heartland to power-hungry cities. As Oklahoma 
attorney general, Mr. Pruitt did everything he could to kill that very 
same project.
  Even more concerning to me is Mr. Pruitt's years of opposition to the 
renewable fuel standard, the RFS. This program is vital in our fight 
against dirty air, and it also greatly benefits Minnesota's rural 
economy. It is certainly better to drive our cars on biofuels from the 
Midwest than on oil from the Middle East. I know that Mr. Pruitt 
pledged during his hearing to honor the RFS, but this same law provides 
him with an important loophole: The RFS permits the head of the EPA to 
reduce the congressionally mandated levels of biofuel production. I, 
for one, do not trust an avid opponent of the RFS to now be responsible 
for its implementation.
  During the confirmation hearings, my Democratic colleagues pushed Mr. 
Pruitt on climate change. His answers were not reassuring. Unlike our 
new President, Mr. Pruitt did not call climate change a ``hoax.'' 
Instead, he was more subtle, repeatedly saying: ``The climate is 
changing, and human activity impacts are changing climate in some 
manner.'' Those words are intentionally deceptive. They are meant to 
sound reasonable but also to excuse inaction. If we look at Mr. 
Pruitt's record, it shows that he has been steadfastly against action 
on climate change, including a suit to block the first requirements for 
powerplants to reduce their carbon emissions. Let me remind you that 
these requirements are based on Supreme Court rulings from a 
conservative majority Court at that.
  In a 2007 decision, Massachusetts v. the EPA, the Supreme Court found 
that the EPA had authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean 
Air Act. It also directed the EPA to assess whether climate change 
endangers public health, which the Agency correctly determined it does. 
The Court further ruled that because of this hazard, the EPA is 
obligated to regulate greenhouse gases.
  During his hearing, Mr. Pruitt made clear that all he wants to do is 
transfer more environmental protection duties to the States, but there 
are two major problems with that. First, 50 States each implementing 
different requirements is both inefficient and likely to lead to a race 
to the bottom. There are many States that will be tempted to trade away 
the long-term public health of their citizens for the quick financial 
rewards that will come if they are able to lure businesses from other 
States with the promise of lax environmental regulations.
  All Americans deserve a clean environment. If States want to 
innovate, free them to do better than our national standards, but there 
needs to be an EPA that can make sure they don't do worse than our 
national standards.
  While my State of Minnesota has been a leader in environmental 
protection, the second problem with the State-by-State approach is that 
pollution doesn't respect State boundaries. The people of my State 
should not suffer ill effects of pollution from States upwind.
  Mr. Pruitt also implied during his hearing that the EPA's regulations 
are killing jobs, suggesting we must either choose employment and 
economic prosperity or public health and environmental protection, but 
this is a false choice. We know we can and must in fact have both. 
Addressing environmental challenges like climate change will not only 
help prevent unprecedented damage to our economy but will also spur 
economic growth and innovation.
  My home State of Minnesota has shown how we can do this. In 2007, 
under a Republican Governor, we established a renewable energy standard 
that produced 25 percent of our power from renewable sources by 2025. 
We established an energy efficiency resource standard requiring 
utilities to become a little more efficient every year. We established 
an aggressive target to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 percent by 2050, 
and we are national leaders in biodiesel blending requirements. These 
policies have not led to economic ruin in Minnesota. They have led to 
economic development--rural economic development--as we harvest the 
wind and Sun and convert our biomass into energy. We are investing in 
clean energy technology not only because it cleans up the air but 
because it creates thousands of jobs. In fact, a clean energy economy 
now employs more than 50,000 people in Minnesota, and it will continue 
to grow.
  In 2005, 6 percent of Minnesota's electricity came from renewable 
sources. Today it is almost 25 percent, and we continue to go higher. 
In addition to good jobs for Minnesotans, this transition brought a 17-
percent decline in power sector greenhouse gas emissions during a 
decade when the population of Minnesota increased 7 percent. It is 
clear that an EPA led by Mr. Pruitt will not move us in the direction 
Minnesota is going.
  Americans expect and deserve clean water, clean air, and a hospitable 
environment. Although EPA is far from perfect, the Agency has shown 
that a cleaner environment is compatible with economic growth. In fact, 
cleaning the environment helps drive economic growth. We cannot afford 
to entrust the EPA to Mr. Pruitt or anyone else who has a history of 
putting polluters' interests above the public's and above the economy 
as a whole. We cannot afford to entrust this Agency to someone the 
President has handpicked to slash its budget and to prevent it from 
carrying out its mission. Mr. Pruitt represents a step backward, not a 
step forward. He is maybe the last person who should be the next leader 
of the EPA. I will oppose this nomination, and I call on my colleagues 
to do the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my postcloture debate time to 
Senator Schumer.
  But first, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blunt). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I am proud to stand today and support Scott 
Pruitt, President Trump's nominee to head the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  I can think of no one who is better suited or more fully qualified to 
lead this Agency and to advance within it the reforms it so desperately 
needs. I look forward to voting to confirm Mr. Pruitt as EPA 
Administrator, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.
  In many ways, the EPA epitomizes the broken status quo in 
Washington--a status quo that is increasingly and rightfully viewed 
with suspicion and a certain amount of contempt by the American people. 
That broken and discredited status quo has been described in various 
ways: out of touch, arbitrary, inflexible, unreasonable, heavyhanded, 
unaccountable. These words

[[Page 2822]]

could apply to any number of institutions or offices here in 
Washington, DC, but they are the hallmarks of the rule-writing 
departments that make up our Federal bureaucracy.
  Technically, these bureaucratic agencies are creatures of the 
executive branch--creatures that exist to assist the President in 
fulfilling his constitutional duty to take care that the laws, written 
by the legislative branch, are to be faithfully executed. But over the 
past several decades, they have been recast as the Federal Government's 
center of gravity, both writing and enforcing and, in many cases, even 
interpreting, the vast majority of laws governing America's society and 
America's economy.
  Elevating the unelected, unaccountable bureaucracy to the driver's 
seat of the Federal Government--to the driver's seat, specifically, of 
Federal policymaking--is mostly the work of Members of Congress, of 
both Chambers and of both political parties, who understand that the 
best way to avoid being blamed by voters for unpopular laws is not to 
make them--at least not to make them completely--but rather to empower 
unelected bureaucrats to make the laws for them. But the regulatory 
agencies themselves sometimes deserve some of the blame as well.
  Congress is guilty of writing laws that are couched in vague terms, 
centered around gauzy goals, instead of strictly defined as 
understandable rules. But Federal regulators are guilty of 
interpreting--and repeatedly reinterpreting--those laws in order to 
accommodate their ever-expanding conception of their own power, of 
their own authority to work their own will on the American people.
  For instance, in the years since Congress passed the Clean Air Act 
amendments in 1977, Federal bureaucrats have used the law to enact more 
than 13,500 pages of regulations, which works out to roughly 30 pages 
of regulations for every 1 page of underlying legislative text.
  The fundamental problem with this expansion and centralization of 
regulatory authority is the tendency of Washington, DC, bureaucrats to 
be ignorant of--and often very indifferent to--the interests of the 
people who live in the various communities who are affected by the 
rules they make and the rules they also enforce.
  This isn't a knock on the individual men and women who work within 
the Federal bureaucracy, most of whom are well-educated, well-
intentioned, and highly specialized. But there is no doubt that a 
regulator in Washington, DC, knows a whole lot less about a melon farm 
in Emery County, UT, and cares a lot less about the fate of the people 
who work at that melon farm in Emery County, UT, than what the 
regulators say in Salt Lake City.
  The Environmental Protection Agency, in particular, is notorious for 
its top-down, Washington-knows-best approach to regulation, which often 
runs roughshod over the immense diversity of local circumstances in our 
large country.
  Too often, the EPA treats States and State regulators not as partners 
but as adversaries. It treats the States themselves not as laboratories 
of republican democracy but, rather, as lab rats to be tested upon for 
their own amusement and for the exertion of their own political power.
  Scott Pruitt understands this well because he has seen it firsthand 
as attorney general of Oklahoma. Mr. Pruitt has spent many years being 
ignored and pushed around by Washington, an experience that has taught 
him the need for the EPA to work with and not condescend to the States.
  In his Senate confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt explained why 
improving the relationship between the EPA and State-level regulators 
is the best way to protect our environment and uphold the separation of 
powers that is the cornerstone of our constitutional system. He said: 
``Cooperative Federalism is at the heart of many of the environmental 
statutes that involve the Environmental Protection Agency.''
  The reason for that is that it is the States that many times have the 
resources, the expertise, and an understanding of the unique challenges 
of protecting our environment and improving our water and our air. We 
need a true partnership between the EPA in performing its roll, along 
with the States in performing theirs. If we have that partnership, as 
opposed to punishment, as opposed to the uncertainty and duress that we 
currently see in the marketplace, I think we will have better air and 
better water quality as a result.
  For many Americans--and certainly for many of my fellow Utahns--the 
EPA is pejorative. It is synonymous with an out-of-touch and out-of-
control government.
  This is a shame. Americans want--and Americans certainly deserve--
clean air and clean water. The EPA has the potential to help them 
achieve these goals, but only if the EPA itself returns to its core 
mission and works well, works wisely to accomplish that mission, and 
works within our constitutional system.
  That is why I am so pleased that Scott Pruitt is on his way to lead 
the EPA. The Agency exists to protect the American people, not advance 
the narrow agenda of some special interests while punishing others.
  I am confident that Mr. Pruitt is the right man for the job and that 
he will remain independent while correcting the troubling course that 
the EPA has taken in recent decades.
  I thank the Chair.
  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. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                     Calling for a Special Counsel

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, we are in a day--in fact, yet another 
day--of fast-developing, dramatic events. The news today that LTG 
Michael Flynn, who served until recently as National Security Advisor, 
may be culpable of lying to the FBI and therefore prosecutable for a 
Federal criminal violation adds urgency to the need for a special 
independent counsel to investigate all of the events surrounding his 
conversation with the Russian Ambassador and who knew what about it 
when and what was done.
  The severity of this potential constitutional crisis--and we are 
careening toward a constitutional crisis--makes it all the more 
necessary that we have an objective and independent investigation, that 
Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuse himself, and the White House 
guarantee that documents are preserved--as we have requested in a 
letter sent by Members of the Judiciary Committee, including myself--
today.
  The severity of this potential constitutional crisis cannot be 
exaggerated. Still we are in the early days of a new administration but 
already the turmoil and turbulence throw into question almost all of 
the proceedings here on other issues, urgent and important issues--
whether infrastructure, trade policy, job creation, economic growth, 
all of the pressing issues of our day. They also raise potential 
conflicts of interest on the part of other officials before us now, 
including the nomination of Scott Pruitt. News that we have also 
learned very recently, in this day of fast-developing events, increases 
the importance of deliberate and thoughtful consideration of this 
nomination.
  Just within the last hour, a judge in Oklahoma has ordered the 
release of thousands of emails sent by this nominee, Scott Pruitt, the 
attorney general of Oklahoma, relevant to his dealings with oil and gas 
interests in his State and elsewhere on relevant legislative and 
litigation issues. This development really requires a delay in this 
vote so we can review those emails and know what those conflicts of 
interest were, what they may continue to be, and whether his answers to 
our colleagues in his testimony at his confirmation hearing were 
completely accurate and truthful. We need to delve into those emails, 
know their contents, examine the contents, in fairness to him and in 
fairness to an administration that may be appointing for confirmation 
yet another official like General Flynn, who

[[Page 2823]]

was forced to resign just days after his appointment.
  The interests of the Trump administration, as well as this body, 
would be well served by delaying this vote so we can review those 
emails. I call upon the Republican leadership to delay this vote, give 
us a chance to review the emails, and give the American public a chance 
to understand how those emails reflect on the qualifications of Scott 
Pruitt and the potential conflicts of interest that may disqualify him 
from serving in this all-important role.
  I am here to oppose the nomination of Scott Pruitt, but whether we 
oppose or approve of this nomination, we owe it to ourselves--I say to 
my colleagues--we owe it to the United States Senate to delay this vote 
so the potentially explosive material and contents of these emails can 
be fully considered. If we fail to delay, we are, in effect, 
potentially confirming a nominee who may be compelled to resign after 
his disqualifying conflicts of interest are exposed to public view. We 
have an obligation in advising and consenting to be as fully informed 
as possible. If there were no such emails, if there were no such court 
order, there might be an excuse for rushing to judgment as we are on 
track to do now. There is no excuse for a rush to confirmation. Our 
obligation to advise and consent implies also an obligation to review 
these emails as comprehensively and fully and fairly as possible before 
we make this decision.
  The President has nominated Scott Pruitt as the next Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency to serve a mission, which is to 
protect human health and safeguard the environment. Even before 
disclosure of these emails, which involve his contacts with oil and gas 
interests, he came before us as perhaps one of the least-qualified 
people in the United States of America to serve in this position. I 
don't make this statement lightly. It may sound like hyperbole or 
exaggeration, but the fact is, anyone who studies Scott Pruitt's record 
as attorney general of his State--and I served as attorney general of 
mine so I know his position pretty well--can see that his record is 
antithetical and hostile to the mission and purpose of this Agency.
  He is a potential Administrator who will take office at a critical 
juncture for our planet. Sea levels continue to rise, long-established 
weather patterns have begun shifting, and the average global 
temperature is rapidly approaching 2 centigrades Celsius above 
preindustrial levels. That is an increase which many climate scientists 
believe may be a point of no return--no return for the planet, no 
return for us, no return for generations to come. We are at a historic 
moment.
  The question will be whether Scott Pruitt will be dedicated to doing 
something about climate change, about the pollution of our air, 
streams, rivers, and oceans, whether he will be committed to enforcing 
the rules and laws that protect us against those dangers of degradation 
of our environment--degradation of the air we breathe, the water we 
drink, the open spaces we enjoy.
  That is the same Scott Pruitt who was pressed by our colleagues 
during his confirmation hearing and could not name a single regulation 
designed to protect clean air or water that he supports--the very same 
Scott Pruitt, who was asked by our colleague Jeff Merkley whether he 
agreed with the statement, ``Warming of the climate system is 
unequivocal,'' and he dodged and equivocated. When he was questioned 
about hundreds of thousands of dollars he has received in campaign 
contributions from energy companies, he basically refused to answer. He 
dodged the question. That is the Scott Pruitt who would become 
Administrator of the EPA, and it is the same Scott Pruitt who, as 
attorney general of Oklahoma, fought the tremendous progress made by 
the Obama administration at every turn, taking legal action against the 
EPA no fewer than 14 times.
  While he was in office, he worked hand in hand with Oklahoma's 
largest energy companies to roll back regulations that are vital to the 
health and well-being of the American people, not just the people of 
Oklahoma, as bad as that would be, but of all Americans, all of our 
plant.
  When he worked hand in hand with the Oklahoma energy industry, those 
common bonds of purpose and work would be well illuminated by these 
emails that today will be disclosed. In fact, maybe some of those 
conflicts of interest will be revealed and dramatized by those emails. 
That is why we must wait to have this confirmation vote.
  He sued to try and block efforts to reduce nationwide emissions of 
methane, a greenhouse gas roughly 30 times more effective at trapping 
even carbon dioxide. He block the Clean Power Plan. He took three 
separate actions against the EPA's mercury and air toxic rule, 
targeting standards that the EPA estimates will save 45,000 lives. 
Those are three more actions, it should be noted, than he took to 
proactively promote clean air and clean water on behalf of the people 
of Oklahoma in his entire time in office. Why did he take those 
actions? Who helped him do it? How and why? The emails will help tell 
that story and answer those questions.
  Taken alone, even without the emails, these actions hardly show a 
record of someone dedicated to promoting and protecting the 
environment. Not once during his confirmation process did Mr. Pruitt 
demonstrate to me a convincing willingness, let alone eagerness, to 
uphold the mission of the Agency he now hopes to run, nor has he shown 
an intent to be open and responsive with Members of this body. Most 
troubling of all, he has, in no uncertain terms, failed to give any 
indication that he will be a champion for our environment and that he 
will advance scientifically sound policies to protect the public's 
health.
  The only thing Attorney General Pruitt has made abundantly clear is 
that he holds a derisively dismissive attitude toward the Agency he now 
seeks confirmation to lead. His nomination is an affront to the EPA, 
but even more, it is a threat to our health, a threat to our 
environment, a threat to the quality of our air and water, and a risky 
gamble on the world we will leave to our children and our 
grandchildren.
  There is a very real concern about whose side Scott Pruitt will be 
on. The question is, Whose side will he be on when and if he is 
Administrator of the EPA? He has already shown a willingness to use the 
power of whatever office he holds to advance an extreme agenda and to 
malign opponents. Polluters do not need another champion in this 
administration, and our environment does not need another foe. We have 
enough foxes guarding henhouses as it is in this administration.
  Mr. Pruitt's coziness with the firms that he will be required to 
regulate--again the emails will tell the story about his relationships 
with special interests. That is critically important, and, in fact, 
even on the record we have now, it should disqualify him from this 
position.
  He doubts the effects of climate change and the extent to which our 
rapidly warming climate is as a result of human activity, calling this 
debate ``far from settled'' and placing himself well outside mainstream 
opinion. His denials are rooted in the promise of funds from 
corporations and interest groups that think it is far better for their 
bottom line to pretend that incontrovertible climate change simply 
doesn't exist.
  He is a beneficiary of the denying corporations and special 
interests, and those contentions are not only regressive and fallacious 
but dangerous. If he is a prisoner of those special interests, as these 
emails may show him to be, my colleagues will regret voting for him--
another reason that delaying his confirmation vote is appropriate and 
necessary now.
  The scientific evidence of climate change and human involvement is 
overwhelming. You don't have to look hard to see it. Most of us in this 
Chamber would need to speak only with a handful of our constituents--
the men and women who sent us here--to see the real impact this crisis 
is having.
  My home State of Connecticut has experienced a major rise in storms 
that

[[Page 2824]]

have cost hundreds of millions of dollars in damage as well as several 
lives. It seems that as soon as our State begins to rebuild from one 
storm, another wreaks havoc on many of the same devastated communities. 
These monster storms have become the new normal.
  In Connecticut and around the country, weather disasters are rapidly 
becoming part of a way of life, tragically, for innocent people caught 
in their wake. In just 6 years, Connecticut has weathered the damage 
and destruction of a freak October snowstorm, Superstorm Sandy, and the 
force of numerous nor'easters. Severe storms like these, as well as 
other disasters--floods, tornadoes, droughts--are happening at a rate 
four times greater than just 30 years ago.
  I am not here to argue climate change. I am here to argue that Scott 
Pruitt is unqualified to fight climate change because he denies it is a 
problem, and he denies the mission and purpose of the EPA as a vital 
purpose and mission of our Federal Government.
  The people of Connecticut understand climate change, and they get it. 
They understand that it is happening and that it is happening in their 
everyday lives. They see its effects. They know its causes, and they 
know the truth. It will get worse. We need to take action.
  This body is on the verge of action that should be postponed so that 
we can consider vitally important information in those emails that 
reflects on conflicts of interest, ties to special interests, influence 
on Scott Pruitt, benefits to him in the past, and debts that he may 
owe, literally and figuratively, to those special interests that may 
impact his performance as Administrator of the EPA.
  As attorney general of my State, environmental protection was a 
priority to me. I will be honest; I sued the Federal Government, just 
as Scott Pruitt did. I sued the Federal Government so that 
environmental protection would be made more rigorous and stringent and 
people would be protected, not to slow down the EPA but to speed it up 
to provide impetus for its action and, in fact, to compel it to carry 
out its mission and purpose.
  Scott Pruitt has acted in exactly the opposite way, and the reasons 
for his antipathy and hostility to the EPA may well be illustrated even 
more dramatically and directly by these emails that we should consider.
  I urge the Republican leadership to postpone and delay this vote so 
that we may, in fact, consider those emails.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I want to first thank Senator Carper 
for his leadership today, and I rise today to join him in speaking 
about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  I will not be voting in favor of Mr. Pruitt's nomination for EPA 
Administrator because of his record and views on issues that are very 
important to the people of my State--issues like climate change, which 
matters in Minnesota, and issues like the Renewable Fuel Standard. I am 
not sure everyone has focused on that today, but I think it is 
important, especially for States in the Midwest, to focus on what his 
record has been on this issue.
  Mr. Pruitt has written that the climate change debate is ``far from 
settled'' and has made other troubling comments about climate change. I 
could not disagree more. I believe that the debate on whether climate 
change is happening is over. The facts are in, and the science is 
clear.
  The ``2014 National Climate Assessment'' stated the most recent 
decade was the Nation's warmest on record. U.S. temperatures are 
expected to continue to rise. It was drafted by over 300 authors and 
extensively reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and a Federal 
advisory committee of 60 members.
  The ``Quadrennial Defense Review 2014'' of the Department of Defense 
of the United States stated: ``The pressures caused by climate change 
will influence resource competition while placing additional burdens on 
economies, societies, and governance institutions around the world.''
  Climate change isn't just about melting glaciers and rising ocean 
levels, although it is certainly about that. It is also about what we 
have experienced in the Midwest. When I first got to the Senate, I 
remember hearing from experts, including people in our own Defense 
Department and major military leaders who talked about the fact that 
one of the consequences of climate change will be, first of all, all 
over the world in economies that are already struggling. We are going 
to see some of those developing nations encounter unpredictable 
weather--hurricanes, tsunamis.
  In the Midwest, while we may not have tsunamis, what we see is major, 
unpredictable weather, which is just as dangerous. We have seen the 
devastating impacts of natural disasters like Hurricane Matthew, and we 
have seen flooding from Cedar Rapids and Duluth.
  We now know the risk of climate change to Minnesota, to our country, 
and to our planet. We must reduce greenhouse gas and tackle the 
challenge of global climate change head-on. If we don't tackle this 
issue, we are going to continue to struggle with the far-reaching 
economic and environmental consequences.
  Shifting global trends have the potential to wreak more long-term 
havoc on our businesses and our industries. That is why businesses in 
my State--major companies like Cargill and General Mills--have been 
willing to take this on, have been willing to talk about this as a 
problem. They see this as a moral obligation to their employees and 
their customers, but they also see it as part of their business. They 
can't simply continue in business and serve people all over the world 
if major economies could be ruined by one storm or if we see areas 
flooded that are on our coast or the kind of weather we have seen in 
the Midwest. It is bad for business, and they are willing to admit 
that.
  As a Senator from Minnesota with a strong ag industry and also a 
tradition of hunting and fishing, I see climate change as a direct 
threat to my State's economy for recreation. It is also a threat to our 
State's heritage of enjoying the outdoors, whether that is snowmobiling 
or whether that is our wildlife. We have seen some major changes to the 
wildlife in our State.
  I have always believed that an ``all of the above'' plan is necessary 
to build a new energy agenda for America, but it must be an agenda that 
recognizes the challenges of climate change. Someone who heads up the 
EPA must believe in science. It is an Agency grounded in science.
  Mr. Pruitt has also been quoted as saying ``the ethanol fuel mandate 
is unworkable.'' I know he has changed some of his views since he was 
nominated, but I, as a Senator from a State that relies on renewable 
fuels as one of our major industries in the ag part of our State, must 
look at his entire record and what he has actually said when he has 
been in positions of power.
  How do I see the Renewable Fuel Standard? The Renewable Fuel Standard 
has led to important advancements in clean energy, and the standard has 
provided stability and predictability that have and will continue to 
drive long-term investments in the renewable space.
  Every time a new study is released on the subject, I become even more 
convinced that investments in renewable fuels are investments in the 
future health of our economy and our environment. A recent study by ABF 
Economics showed that the ethanol industry generated $7.37 billion in 
gross sales in 2015 for Minnesota businesses and $1.6 billion in income 
for Minnesota households. Here is a big one: The ethanol industry also 
supports over 18,000 full-time jobs in Minnesota.
  Senators on both sides of the aisle understand that renewable fuels 
are important as a home-grown economic generator. They also are about 
10 percent of our fuel supply in the United States. That is a 
competitor for oil. When we have that kind of competition, that allows 
us to have everything from electric cars to other kinds of renewables, 
and we should not simply

[[Page 2825]]

rely on the oil industry to fuel our vehicles. Renewable fuels are an 
important competitor.
  As I mentioned, there is strong bipartisan support for renewable 
fuels. I have worked closely with many friends across the aisle for 
many years on this issue. And, of course, the further ethanol and 
renewable fuels take us, the less dependent we will be on foreign oil. 
We need and want a mixed fuel supply.
  Now is not the time to waiver on support for renewable fuels. The EPA 
Administrator has many flexibilities under the law to slow or make 
changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard, and that is why I am concerned 
about the past record of this nominee on this important issue.
  Another reason we need consistent and effective leadership at the EPA 
is in the fight to maintain and restore the Great Lakes. Our Great 
Lakes contain 90 percent of our Nation's supply of fresh surface water 
and supply drinking water to 30 million Americans. And our economy? The 
Great Lakes' combined economic impact is so enormous that restoration 
alone is estimated to provide $50 billion in long-term economic 
benefits. That is why last year's Water Infrastructure Improvements for 
the Nation Act reauthorized the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 
These projects have helped eliminate toxins from our waters, combat 
invasive species--something very critical in my State with invasive 
carp--protect against pollution, restore habitats for fish and 
wildlife, and promote the overall health.
  The Administrator of the EPA is responsible for leading efforts to 
implement, administer, and distribute grant funding across agencies 
that undertake restoration activities. As I noted, Minnesota is home to 
a thriving outdoor economy that relies on clean water, free of invasive 
species. It is vital that our next EPA Administrator continue to take 
action to stop the spread of invasive carp before they reach the Great 
Lakes and many of our most important northern waters.
  My background? My grandpa was an iron ore miner. He worked 1,500 feet 
underground in the mines most of his life. Every day when he went down 
in that cage, he would always think about what he would like to do in 
the outdoors. He loved to hunt. About once a year, they would borrow a 
car from my uncle. They would go to see Lake Superior, and he would 
bring his sons to see Lake Superior.
  I want an EPA Administrator that sees that, yes, you want a strong 
economy, and yes, those things can work together with the environment, 
but you also need to preserve that outdoors and wildlife and those 
Great Lakes my grandpa and my family hold so dear.
  Mr. Pruitt has articulated extreme views about the role of the EPA, 
but there is a bigger problem here. We still don't know his full views 
and record. My colleagues who sat on the Environment and Public Works 
Committee have asked Mr. Pruitt to produce critical documents that will 
clarify his record and vision for the EPA, and 19 times, Mr. Pruitt 
told Senators they should get the information from his attorney 
general's office. Well, they tried and they have not succeeded. The 
Oklahoma attorney general's office told them that they have a 2-year 
backlog for such requests. In committee questions for the record, my 
colleagues asked Mr. Pruitt to clear the backlog and provide the 
committee with these communications. Once again, he declined. Mr. 
Pruitt has not provided the Senate with the information we need to make 
an informed decision about his nomination.
  The EPA Administrator will be entrusted with protecting the health 
and well-being of Americans. This is a tremendous responsibility. That 
is why Americans deserve a clear picture of Mr. Pruitt's record on 
protecting public health, clean air, and clean water, including a 
review of the emails that were ordered to be released today.


                                 Russia

  Now, Mr. President, I would like to turn to another topic. Actually, 
after watching parts of the President's lengthy and unpredictable news 
conference today, I came upon some of the parts dealing with Russia. I 
thought it was important that I come down to the floor and address 
them.
  The part of the press conference that I saw was where the President 
referred to the reporting that has been done on Russia as fake news. 
The reporting that has been done about all of the contacts between 
members of his campaign and the Russian intelligence agencies--I assume 
he includes the reporting that has been done on the phone call that was 
made to the Russian Ambassador--and the various other reporting that we 
have seen--that is very troubling about this administration's dealing 
with Russia from the campaign time, to the transition, to the present.
  I would just like to say that this is far from fake news; this is 
fact. And if you don't believe it is fact, then that means you don't 
believe 17 U.S. intelligence agencies and that instead you take the 
word of Russians, Russian intelligence and Putin's word. I go with our 
17 U.S. intelligence agencies that have made it very clear that Russia 
had been attempting to influence our election.
  This was borne out to me when Senator McCain, Senator Graham, and I 
visited the Baltics, Ukraine, and Georgia at the end of last year in 
December. What we saw there and what we heard there makes us know that 
this is not just one single incident of Russia trying to influence one 
candidate's campaign or even one election or even one country's 
election, but that this is a modus operandi, that they have done this 
before. They did it in Estonia when they were mad that they moved a 
statue. What did they do? They shut down their internet. They did it in 
Lithuania when the Lithuanians had the audacity to invite members of 
the Ukrainian Parliament who were in exile because they were part of 
the legally annexed Crimea. Lithuania invites them to their 25th 
anniversary celebration of their independence from Russia. What 
happens? Russia attacks the accounts of members of the Lithuanian 
Parliament.
  I have already expressed deep concern about this administration's 
lack of transparency on a variety of critical issues, but nowhere is 
this more true than when it comes to this administration's interactions 
with the Russian Government. For months, U.S. intelligence agencies 
have said that Russia used covert cyber attacks, espionage, and harmful 
propaganda--$200 million worth--to try to undermine our democracy. 
Reports show it and the facts prove it.
  Unlike what the President said today at the press conference, this is 
not fake news. Last week, in fact, we learned that the very day 
President Obama imposed sanctions on Russia for their unprecedented 
attacks on our democracy, a member of the Trump transition team spoke 
to a senior Russian official regarding those sanctions and then did not 
tell the truth about it. The National Security Advisor--the person 
charged with the most sensitive matters of U.S. national security--
misled the Vice President and, in turn, the American people. We have 
now seen two people resign: the campaign manager for Trump's campaign 
and the National Security Advisor. And one of the things they have in 
common is Russia and a relationship with Russia.
  So, no, this is not what the President said at his press conference 
today or earlier in a tweet. This is not about some kind of sour 
grapes--those were not his words but his implication about the loss of 
Hillary Clinton. That is not what this is. This is not about her loss 
in the last campaign. No. These are facts that have emerged since that 
time that I think are important to everyone.
  I appreciated the words a few months ago from Senator Rubio, who said 
that this is not about one campaign, this is not about one election, 
because it could quickly turn on the other party. We have an obligation 
as Senators to protect our democracy. That is what this is about--to 
make sure we have fair and free elections that are not influenced by 
foreign governments.
  Today, Secretary Mattis said that Russia's behavior is aggressive and 
destabilizing. I thought that was a good caricature of not only what we 
have seen in our own country but also what

[[Page 2826]]

we have seen overseas. And then he went on to say that right now we are 
not negotiating from a position of strength. Well, that is certainly 
true when our own President then, a few hours later, takes to the stage 
and says that this is simply fake news and that we are talking about 
Russia's aggression as some kind of response to the loss in the last 
campaign.
  We need to know the full extent of the administration's contact with 
the Russian Government during the campaign and transition, including 
what was said, what was done, and who knew about it. Only then will we 
answer that fourth ``w.'' Who, what, where--it is the only way we are 
going to answer why. Why is this administration so focused on trying to 
placate Russia?
  I recently joined Senators Cardin, Leahy, Feinstein, and Carper--this 
was early January--to introduce legislation that would create an 
independent, nonpartisan commission to look at the facts and to make 
recommendations about how we can handle future elections so they will 
be free and safeguarded from foreign interference. This would, of 
course, be in addition to the thorough investigation that I have been 
ensured will occur with the Intelligence Committee under the leadership 
of Senators Burr and Warner.
  In the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the three branches 
of government and our system of checks and balances. One of the 
fundamental jobs of Congress is to closely oversee the executive branch 
to ensure that the law is being properly followed and enforced. I think 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand how important that 
is.
  I am the ranking member of the Senate Rules Committee, and one of our 
jobs is to oversee our election system. A big part of my job as the 
Democratic leader of this committee will be to ensure that our election 
system is safe from foreign interference in the future.
  Intelligence experts have been clear: Russian interference in our 
2016 election was not an anomaly. The threat of future tampering is 
real and immediate. As Senator Rubio said and I just noted, this time 
it was the Democrats who were attacked. Next time it could be a 
Republican. And it is not something that is limited to one party. 
Future threats could come in the form of more misinformation. They 
could range from using social media to disrupt the voting process to 
even hacking into State reporting websites to alter vote totals. 
Russia's goal is to create confusion and undermine people's trust in 
our democratic institutions. That is why they spent $200 million last 
year to fund the spread of fake news.
  We need solutions and not more problems. Just last week, the House 
voted to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, the only Federal 
agency charged with protecting American elections from hacking. As 
ranking member of the Rules Committee, I find this unconscionable. We 
have to do more, not less, to protect American elections from foreign 
interference.
  The EAC and the Department of Homeland Security were in communication 
with State election officials prior to election day promoting cyber 
security best practices. Our agencies have ensured that safeguards, 
like provisional ballots, would allow people to cast ballots even if 
their systems were hacked. We have to do more, not less, to support 
this effort. That is why I am currently developing legislation that 
will protect our elections from foreign interference. We are going to 
work with the EAC, DHS, and all 50 States to protect voting systems and 
registration data bases from cyber security threats. We will also make 
sure State and local election officials have the resources they need to 
make these critical cyber security upgrades.
  Recent news events show us just how severe the problem is. Now we 
have to come up with the solutions. My Republican colleague, Senator 
McCain, got it right yesterday when he said this. This gets to the 
security issue that goes even beyond our elections:

       General Flynn's resignation also raises further questions 
     about the Trump administration's intentions toward Vladimir 
     Putin's Russia, including statements by the president 
     suggesting moral equivalence between the United States and 
     Russia despite its invasion of Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, 
     and threats to our NATO allies.

  The day that the Obama administration was imposing sanctions on 
Russia--and the Trump campaign was allegedly undermining those 
sanctions--I was with Senators McCain and Graham in Eastern Europe. The 
goal of our trip was to reenforce support for NATO and our allies in 
the face of increased Russian aggression. We visited the Baltics, 
Ukraine, and Georgia--countries on the frontlines of this fight, and 
they know Russia's playbook well.
  In our meetings with Presidents and Prime Ministers of those 
countries, it was increasingly evident that if we don't stop Russia 
now, cyber attacking against governments, political parties, 
newspapers, and companies will only get worse.
  This is a pattern of waging cyber attacks and military invasions 
against democratic governments across the world. Ukraine itself has 
been targeted by Russian hackers more than 6,500 times in just the past 
2 months--earlier I used the examples of Estonia and Lithuania, but 
6,500 times in just the past 2 months. Now we have evidence that Russia 
is working to undermine the elections in France and Germany.
  This is not just about defending our own democracy; it is about 
defending the democratic way of life and democracies across the world. 
We must be a united front in fighting Russian aggression, and we must 
make it clear to Russia that there are consequences to their actions. 
That is why I joined a bipartisan group of my colleagues to introduce 
the Countering Russian Hostilities Act, legislation that would impose 
strong actions against Russia. These sanctions would address cyber 
attacks, human rights violations, and the illegal annexation of land in 
Ukraine and Georgia.
  The world continues to look to America for its steadfast, steady 
leadership. The United States, a beacon for freedom and democracy, must 
continue to stand up against Russian aggression. The leader of our 
country should not be calling those reports that have been 
substantiated by 17 U.S. intelligence agencies ``fake news.'' That is 
what happened today.
  On New Years' Eve, together with Ukrainian President Poroshenko and 
Senators McCain and Graham, we stood at the border of eastern Ukraine, 
2 years after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, 2 years after the 
invasion of eastern Ukraine, 10,000 lives lost.
  Ukrainian soldiers stood, and they have continued to stand, 
protecting their homeland and defending their democracy. For years, our 
allies have been subject to aggression and invasions, but they are 
undeterred, unwilling to give up what they fought so hard for: 
independence, freedom, and democracy. If we are committed to ensuring 
that Russia's hacking invasions and blackmail do not go unchecked, we 
must do everything in our power to uncover the full extent of this 
interference in our own political system. As our allies stand there 
every day losing people on the frontlines, looking to us for support, 
looking to us, we cannot turn our own backs on an invasion--a cyber 
invasion on our own democracy. We must also stand up for independence, 
freedom, and democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, I want to initially begin by thanking my 
colleague from Oklahoma for graciously allowing me to proceed first 
ahead of him. He is, as ever, a terrific colleague. I would like to 
associate myself with the remarks of my colleague from Minnesota. I, 
too, led a bipartisan delegation--two Republican House Members and two 
Senate Democrats--to Eastern European in August and observed many of 
the same issues and concerns that she just raised and have joined her, 
along with 10 Republican Senators and 8 other Democratic Senators, in 
the legislation she mentioned. I think this is an important issue on 
which all of us should focus.
  Mr. President, let me turn to the matter at hand, the nomination of 
Scott Pruitt to serve as the director of

[[Page 2827]]

the EPA. I thank my colleagues, many of whom have come to the floor to 
speak about the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, and most 
essentially, my senior Senator and friend from my home State of 
Delaware, Tom Carper, ranking member of the Environment and Public 
Works Committee, who has ably led this fight.
  I am glad to be able to join my colleagues to make clear why, in my 
view, someone who does not believe in a core Federal role in protecting 
the environment is not the right person to lead the Federal Agency 
charged with just that mission. It is possible that we in this Chamber 
have now forgotten why the Environmental Protection Agency was created 
in the first place. The idea of Federal protection of our environment 
really started to take hold when the Cuyahoga River caught fire, again, 
in June of 1969. The public outrage that rightfully followed this near-
spontaneous combustion of a river helped lead to the EPA's creation in 
1970 and the passage of the Clean Air Act the same year and the Clean 
Water Act in 1972.
  Now, nearly a half century later, it is precisely because these laws 
and others like them have been successful in making us healthier and 
safer that it is easy to forget why we need them.
  Institutions like the EPA don't run themselves. The environment does 
not protect itself, and big oil and gas and coal companies certainly 
don't police themselves. That is why the EPA exists. You would 
certainly hope that at the very least the Administrator of that Agency 
would support that core mission. Yet this evening we are considering 
the nomination of someone whose main experience with environmental 
protection at the Federal level is filing lawsuits against the Federal 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  In fact, he has filed 14 of those lawsuits in just 6 years as 
attorney general of the State of Oklahoma. That is not all he has done. 
Scott Pruitt, in his confirmation hearing, refused to recuse himself 
from consideration of future cases which he brought against the EPA if 
confirmed.
  Mr. Pruitt has also suggested that Senators who want more information 
about the details of his record should file FOIA requests rather than 
providing that information voluntarily. He has described himself as ``a 
leading advocate against the Federal EPA's activist agenda.'' Scott 
Pruitt has not been able to name in confirmation hearings one single 
environmental protection statute he supports. In my view, that is 
unacceptable for a State attorney general let alone someone nominated 
to be our Nation's highest ranking environmental protection official.
  Mr. Pruitt's disdain for the core mission of the EPA leaves me 
without a doubt that he is unfit to take on this important role, but 
that is not all. Scott Pruitt either ignores or is ignorant of the core 
and important science of climate change, mercury, lead exposure, ocean 
acidification, to name just a few of many topics uncovered in his 
confirmation hearing.
  Mr. Pruitt acknowledges the climate is changing but says the role, 
the influence of human activity is ``subject to debate.'' I am here to 
say this evening, that is simply not true. Only in an alternative 
universe, based on alternative facts, is the human impact on climate 
change still subject to debate. That is like saying that Scott Pruitt 
is fit to lead the EPA is subject to debate. I think after an 
exhaustive confirmation hearing and a review on the floor of the facts, 
it is not. It is simply not true.
  Scott Pruitt also led a lawsuit against EPA rules that would reduce 
mercury emissions from coal-fired powerplants. He argued it was too 
expensive, too burdensome, but he also questioned whether mercury 
itself was harmful to health. On that issue, the science is clear. 
Mercury has devastating effects on the development of the human nervous 
system.
  Does Mr. Pruitt not get that or does he not care? Those are pressing 
questions for me. During his confirmation process, Mr. Pruitt was 
confused about ocean acidification, a process explained by very basic 
science. A question I was left with was whether Mr. Pruitt just did not 
get it or just did not care.
  In that same hearing, he made statements that indicated he was 
unfamiliar with the Federal standards regarding lead in drinking water. 
I had to ask myself whether he simply has not heard of Flint, MI, or 
was not concerned.
  My office alone has received nearly 1,000 calls and emails from 
Delawareans expressing concern about Scott Pruitt and the future of the 
EPA under his potential leadership, expressing concern and opposition. 
Delawareans have reached out to me saying they are worried about their 
kids with asthma; they are worried about clean drinking water for their 
families; they are worried about protecting our rivers, our wetlands, 
and other outdoor spaces in Delaware and around the country.
  With Scott Pruitt potentially at the helm of the EPA, they are right 
to be worried. Let me end by sharing a brief excerpt of a letter from 
one of my constituents who lives in my hometown of Wilmington, DE. She 
wrote:

       Please vote against Scott Pruitt as leader of the EPA. Our 
     children's future, their health and well-being, and their 
     right to inherit a world we have not irreversibly destroyed 
     may depend on it.

  She is absolutely right. Our kids do deserve a better environmental 
future. To her and all the Delawareans who have contacted me and my 
friend and colleague from my home State, I hear you. I intend to vote 
against Scott Pruitt. If my colleagues in the Senate really want to 
stop pollution, we can start by keeping Scott Pruitt from going to lead 
the EPA.
  Our environment should not be for sale, should not be neglected, and 
should not be turned aside from being the core mission of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. I think we all should stand firm 
against the nomination of Scott Pruitt to lead that important Agency.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. LANKFORD. Mr. President, it is an absolute honor to be able to 
rise and speak in support of Attorney General Scott Pruitt. For the 
last 6 years, Scott has been a leader in the State of Oklahoma. He has 
been strongly committed to enforcing the law in Oklahoma as it is 
written and as is consistent with the Constitution. He is a statesman. 
He is a dedicated public servant.
  As the Administrator of the EPA, I fully expect Scott to be able to 
lead the Agency to follow every environmental law and to partner with 
States, local authorities, and tribes to do what is best for the 
present and for the future. I have heard some people talk about their 
opposition to Scott's nomination, saying they don't believe Scott 
believes in clean air, in clean water.
  That is not the issue for Scott. Scott absolutely believes in clean 
air and clean water, and the accusations that somehow he wants dirty 
air and dirty water and our children to be poisoned is ludicrous.
  The question for Scott is not if we should have clean air and clean 
water, it is who is the primary steward of our clean air and our clean 
water. Everyone has a role. We are a nation that is connected to each 
other. What happens in one State does affect another State. That is why 
we have a national strategy working with the Environmental Protection 
Agency, but in the Clean Water Act and in the Clean Air Act, the States 
are given primary responsibility through what is called a State 
Implementation Plan to determine what is in their best interests and 
the best solutions to be able to deal with the issues of air and water.
  Scott has fought for the State to be allowed to be in the driver's 
seat with regard to all of the State resources, arguing for those that 
work in wind farms, in oilfields, and on cattle ranches, for families 
who have drinking water and breathe the air and who live there. The 
people who should have the loudest voices should be the people who 
actually drink that water and breathe that air and understand the 
effects of it firsthand.
  He has not been alone in this fight. As the attorney general of 
Oklahoma, he stood shoulder to shoulder with

[[Page 2828]]

more than half of the States to ensure the Federal Government operates 
within the bounds of the statutes and the Constitution. He has 
consistently argued that the EPA, when they promulgate rules that 
violate that basic principle of the State Implementation Plan, should 
stop, do what the EPA does best, and have the EPA push the States to do 
what they should do best.
  In an environment where Chevron deference is the precedent set, it is 
critical that the leader of an Agency that has such wide latitude to 
extract costs out of the economy, should respect the federalist 
foundation we have, and the pocketbooks of hard-working families, as 
well as our air and our water.
  In previous congressional testimony, he stressed the importance of 
laws like the Clean Air Act, stressing that the intention was for 
States to work together under a model of cooperative federalism that 
protects the environment while considering economic costs.
  Scott pursued cases against the EPA and other Federal agencies in an 
effort to enable and embolden our State government officials to craft 
the legislation that needs to be done. His focus has been not to 
eliminate environmental protections, it is to honor a country with 
tremendous diversity, from rocky mountains to open deserts, to 
beautiful woodland areas.
  Surprisingly enough, the issues that we face on our environment, in 
the concrete jungle of Washington, DC, is different than it is in 
Woodward, OK. Let me give you an example of one of those cases that he 
engaged in. It is a case where the EPA created a new regulation called 
waters of the United States. It dramatically changed the definition of 
what are the areas the EPA can oversee and increased their regulatory 
authority by millions of acres in just one regulatory sweep.
  The courts immediately stepped in and stopped this, and Scott Pruitt 
and many other States' attorneys general said: The EPA does not have 
the right to be able to step into almost every inch of our State and 
say they suddenly have regulatory authority.
  In fact, the court said this: ``We conclude that petitioners have 
demonstrated a substantial possibility of success on the merits of 
their claims.''
  Furthermore, they said this: ``What is of greater concern to us, in 
balancing the harms, is the burden--potentially visited nationwide on 
government bodies, state and federal, as well as private parties.''
  The court stepped in and agreed with Scott Pruitt that the EPA was 
overreaching, and that case is still in the courts right now. That is a 
reasonable thing to be able to do, for an attorney general who has the 
responsibility to not only manage the legal issues of the State but 
also to watch out for the consumers of the State. As funny as it 
sounds, if you go to the EPA's website today and look at Oklahoma and 
air quality, here is what it says. The EPA website today reads: ``CAA 
permitting in Oklahoma. Clean Air Act permitting in Oklahoma is the 
responsibility of the Air Quality Division Exit of the Oklahoma 
Department of Environmental Quality.''
  The EPA's website today says responsibility for this is from the 
Department of Environmental Quality in Oklahoma.
  All our attorney general has done is said to the EPA: You should 
probably follow the law or at least your own website to be able to 
handle all of the permitting issues of who has authority to do this. 
For the past month, I have heard Senator after Senator come to this 
floor and describe my great State of Oklahoma in a way that makes Scott 
Pruitt sound like an ogre and my State sound like a toxic waste dump.
  Let me give you an example. Attorney General Pruitt has been 
dismissed by some who say that he has personally been engaged in 
leading our State to such terrible air quality that the American Lung 
Association has given the counties in Oklahoma an F rating.
  Well, that is an interesting accusation, until you actually go to the 
American Lung Association website and see that they give almost every 
county in America an F rating. In fact, they give every county in 
Delaware an F rating in air quality. They categorize those under ``high 
ozone days'' and one of three counties just barely skated by with a D 
in particle pollution for Delaware, while in Oklahoma the two largest 
metropolitan areas actually received an A from the American Lung 
Association. Similarly, in that same study, Rhode Island lacks a single 
county that doesn't get an F for air quality on high ozone days, while 
only two counties received passing grades for particulate pollution.
  The accusation that somehow the American Lung Association has looked 
at Scott Pruitt and his record on environmental policy and has given us 
dirty air quality is not actually true when you see the full study.
  What is interesting, as well, is that the EPA publishes data about 
whether counties meet the national ambient air quality standards, and 
they have six criteria that the EPA puts out. In fact, recently they 
dropped their criteria significantly from the previous years. What is 
interesting, as well, is that for Oklahoma, last week, the EPA released 
their national ambient air quality standards, trying to determine which 
counties had attainment of the standard or nonattainment. Guest what. 
Every single county in Oklahoma--all 77--have attainment. Even as to 
the new standard that was just released, that we don't even have to 
operate under, we already meet those standards for ambient air quality.
  Meanwhile, Maryland has 12 counties in nonattainment for at least 1 
of those criteria. Connecticut has eight counties that don't meet those 
standards. California has 38 of their 58 counties failing to meet those 
standards in at least 1 criteria. There are 77 counties in Oklahoma, 
and every single one of them meets attainment.
  I don't hear anyone standing on this floor challenging the attorney 
general of California or of Maryland or of Connecticut and demonizing 
them and accusing them of not taking care of the air and the water in 
their State.
  By the way, I have also heard on this floor, as my State is being 
ripped apart for political gain, over and over that asthma rates for 
children are catastrophically high in Oklahoma and that Scott Pruitt 
should have been more engaged, filing lawsuits so that asthma rates 
would go down--until you look at the CDC website for asthma rates for 
children. It is 10.1 in Oklahoma. One child is too many. It is 10.1 
percent in our State, but you can compare that to Rhode Island, which 
is 12.4; or Michigan, which is 10.7. Vermont beat us, by the way. They 
are 9.9--0.2 below us.
  Again, I don't hear anyone on this floor calling out the attorneys 
general of Vermont, Michigan, and Rhode Island and saying they failed 
to protect their children because children have asthma in their State.
  Another thing that is commonly said about Scott Pruitt and the State 
of Oklahoma is that he is committed to conventional energy sources and 
that he is stuck in the past, dealing with oil and gas.
  I will tell you that Oklahoma is rightfully right proud of its 
history of oil and gas in our State. We have unlocked resources that 
have absolutely powered our Nation forward. We also have an incredible 
group of visionaries in our State that are driving renewable resources 
as fast as we are driving oil and gas in our State.
  For all the folks that are here bashing oil and gas, I would remind 
you that you traveled to Washington, DC, on a plane, in a car, or on a 
train that was powered by Oklahoma energy. So you are welcome. And I 
will assume that, 2 weeks from now, when we return back for session, 
you are going to ride in on a horse just to be able to spite Oklahoma's 
energy--probably not. But can I remind you of something?
  What is often overlooked about Oklahoma and what has not been stated 
here is that Oklahoma truly is an all-of-the-above energy State--solar, 
hydroelectric, geothermal, wind, oil, gas, and coal.
  Let me give you an example--just one of the examples from that. 
Recent data shows that Oklahoma ranks third nationally in total wind 
power. We just passed California for total wind production. We are just 
barely behind Iowa

[[Page 2829]]

and Texas. The installed capacity for Oklahoma alone--just in wind 
generation--is 1.3 million households powered by wind power out of 
Oklahoma.
  I will admit that I am a little biased about my State. But I am weary 
of hearing people inaccurately demean the air and water in Oklahoma and 
try to accuse it of something that is not true for their political 
benefit.
  Here is my invitation to any Member of this body. Why don't you come 
home to Oklahoma with me? I will buy you some great barbecue and drive 
you around the State. I will take you through the Green Country in the 
northeast part of the State, over to Kenton, OK, and Black Mesa to see 
the majestic area around our panhandle. We will drive four-wheelers in 
Little Sahara, and maybe we will drive down to Beavers Bend Park, stand 
under the tall trees, and put our feet in the crystal clear water of 
that river. I will even take you to my house in Oklahoma City, a 
community of a million people that exceeds the EPA air quality 
standards for ambient air quality.
  We say in Oklahoma: ``The land we belong to is grand,'' and we mean 
it. We are passionate about our land, and we are passionate about our 
air and water. I will tell you that Scott Pruitt is passionate about 
his State and what we do there.
  I will tell you how political this has really become. Mike Turpen is 
the former attorney general of the State of Oklahoma and, by the way, 
he is also the former chairman of the Oklahoma Democratic Party. Mike 
Turpen, when it was announced that Scott Pruitt was going to be tapped 
to be head of the EPA, released this statement:

       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a good choice to 
     head up the Environmental Protection Agency. I am convinced 
     Scott Pruitt will work to protect our natural habitats, 
     reserves and resources. His vision for a proper relationship 
     between protection and prosperity makes him superbly 
     qualified to serve as our next EPA administrator.

  That is from the former head of the Oklahoma Democratic Party.
  So far, my colleagues have found a good reason for every Cabinet 
nominee to delay, delay, delay. This has now been the slowest 
confirmation process for any President since George Washington. The 
tradition has always been that the President won an election, and he 
should be able to hire his own staff and his own Cabinet and get busy 
going to work. That is what the American people asked him to do.
  Scott Pruitt deserves an up-or-down vote, and he deserves our trust 
to be able to take on and follow the law, doing what the EPA requires 
him to do.
  Scott Pruitt is a friend. I understand that some of the folks who 
have attacked him have only met him at a hearing or read about him on 
some blog site. But I have prayed with Scott. I have seen Scott 
struggle with the hard decisions that affect our State's future. I have 
seen Scott listen to people from all sides of an issue, and I have seen 
him take difficult stands. I think he will be an excellent EPA 
Administrator, and I think he will make some wise choices to not only 
protect what is happening now but to be able to help protect us for the 
future.
  You see, Scott is a husband and a dad as well, and he cares also 
about the future of our country. I think he is going to go after it, 
and he will be able to be an excellent Administrator in the days ahead.


                         Tribute to Bryan Berky

  Mr. President, I would like to take a quick moment just to be able to 
reflect. I have a staff member named Bryan Berky. He is running off. He 
has been quite a leader. He is leaving us to be able to take on a new 
task and a new role.
  Since 2010, he has been a tremendous asset to the Senate. Bryan Berky 
is a student of Senate procedures. He is the one in the office whom 
everyone wishes they had because, when something comes up and someone 
has some novel new idea of how the rules work, he is typically the one 
on the corner saying: Yes, that really won't work, and here is why.
  He has been sharp on budget issues, on tax issues, and efficiency in 
government. He has been the one who has been passionate about the 
national debt--and not just talking about national debt but actually 
trying to solve it.
  You see, Bryan Berky is one of those unique staffers not trying to 
make a point. He is trying to actually solve the problem.
  He was mentored by a guy named Dr. Tom Coburn, who wasn't too bad on 
those issues himself. He has led well, and I am proud that he has been 
on my staff.
  As he leaves from the Senate, he will be sorely missed by this whole 
body--even by people who never met him. He had an impact, based on the 
things that he worked on.
  If you want to get a chance to visit with Bryan Berky, though, you 
can talk about Senate procedures, tax policy, and nerdy budget issues 
or you can chat with him about Oklahoma State football. He spent his 
time through college working for the Oklahoma State football team, 
watching the films and breaking down every single play, preparing the 
team for practice and for the game days.
  He is a great student of people and of process.
  I just want to be able to pass on to the Presiding Officer that there 
is a guy named Bryan Berky who is leaving the Senate in the next week, 
and he will be sorely missed by this Senate and by our team in the days 
ahead.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, last year was the hottest year on record, 
and 16 of the last 17 years have been the warmest years ever recorded. 
Climate change science is some of the most thoroughly established and 
well-tested research in history, and 97 percent of the published 
research says climate change is real and caused by humans.
  Climate change is an urgent threat to our health, our national 
security, and our economy. How we address it is what we need to debate, 
not whether it is real.
  As I have said before, I will work with anyone in this Chamber--
Republican or Democrat--to address this issue. That is appropriate 
because survey after survey of people in Colorado--a State that is a 
third Democratic, a third Republican, and a third Independent--
demonstrates that they believe the science, no matter which party they 
belong to.
  In a very welcome sign, just last week, a group of statesmen, 
including former Secretary of State James Baker III, former Secretary 
of State George Shultz, and former Secretary of the Treasury Henry 
Paulson, Jr.,--all Republicans--released what they described as a 
``conservative climate solution.''
  These distinguished leaders have come together at just the right 
moment--at the perfect moment--because our new President says that he 
is ``not a big believer'' in climate change. In fact, he claimed during 
the campaign that climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese to 
make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.
  Consistent with that view, the President's nominee to run the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, recently said that the 
debate over climate change is quote ``far from settled.'' He wondered 
in December whether global warming is ``true or not,'' whether it is 
caused by humans and whether the Earth is cooling instead of heating. 
As attorney general of Oklahoma, he sought to prevent the very Agency 
he has been nominated to lead from fighting climate change, suing the 
EPA 14 times.
  It is important, I guess, to note that while it is rare for somebody 
in America to share these views, Attorney General Pruitt is not alone 
in his extreme views in the new President's Cabinet. Rick Perry, the 
nominee to be Secretary of Energy, wrote in his book that climate 
science is ``all one contrived phony mess'' and that the Earth is 
actually ``experiencing a cooling trend.'' Ben Carson, the nominee to 
run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, said: ``It is not 
clear if temperatures are going up or going down.'' Rex Tillerson, the 
new Secretary of State, said: ``None of the models agree on how climate 
change works.'' Mr. Trump's CIA Director,

[[Page 2830]]

Mike Pompeo, said: ``There are scientists who think lots of different 
things about climate change.''
  When the Pope was talking about the importance of addressing climate 
change, which he said was a very real threat, there was an American 
politician who said that the Pope should stick to religion and that he 
wasn't a scientist. In fact, the Pope studied chemistry. I am glad he 
is using his voice on this important issue.
  To be clear, some nominees seem to have undergone a confirmation 
process evolution on climate, but this seems more an effort to hide 
their extreme views in an effort to be confirmed rather than a genuine 
conversion based on facts or science, and that is a shame because the 
world cannot wait for this administration to stop ignoring the science.
  Over the past 150 years, human activity has driven up greenhouse gas 
levels in our atmosphere higher and faster than at any time over the 
last 400,000 years. That is not surprising because we have pumped 
almost 400 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere since the 
start of the Industrial Revolution. As a result, carbon dioxide 
concentrations have risen from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per 
million for the first time in recorded history. That significant change 
over an insignificant period of time is dramatically changing the 
Earth. These emissions act like closed car windows: They allow light 
and heat in, but they don't allow most of the heat to ever escape.
  Already, record heating has melted ice sheets as large as Texas, 
Georgia, and New York combined, adding billions of tons of water to our 
oceans every year. These rising seas have partially submerged cities in 
Florida and Georgia several times per year. They threaten 31 towns and 
cities in Alaska with imminent destruction. They are forcing a city in 
Louisiana to relocate its residents away from what is now an almost 
permanently flooded coast. By 2030, there won't be any glaciers left in 
Montana's Glacier National Park.
  While extreme events and natural disasters become more frequent, so 
do the effects climate change has on our daily lives. In my home State, 
7 out of 10 Coloradans know that climate change is happening, and 
nearly half say they have personally experienced its effects. Shorter 
winters are already a threat to Colorado's $4.8 billion ski and 
snowboard industry and its 46,000 jobs.
  Since the snow is melting sooner, there is not enough water for what 
are now longer summers. Colorado's farmers are forced to grow food with 
less water, a changing growing season, and higher temperatures. Our 
agriculture industry employs over 170,000 Coloradans and contributes 
more than $40 billion a year to our economy. These changes are not only 
threatening farmers' livelihoods, they are changing production and food 
prices at grocery stores.
  Our beer industry is even weighing in. This week, I received a letter 
from 32 brewers from around the country, including three from Colorado, 
who oppose Scott Pruitt's nomination because they depend on America's 
clean water resources to brew their beer.
  Hotter summers and the droughts they prolong cause wildfires that now 
burn twice as much land every year than they did 40 years ago. 
Together, State and Federal agencies are paying nearly $4 billion a 
year to fight those fires. Warmer waters and drought are hurting 
animals everywhere, like our cutthroat trout populations in Colorado. 
That is not just a problem for the fish; in Colorado, rivers generate 
more than $9 billion in economic activity every year, including 
supporting nearly 80,000 jobs.
  As warmer temperatures increase and spread across regions, so do 
incidents of vector-borne diseases like the West Nile virus and the 
hantavirus. And what do we do when we have longer, hotter summers? We 
crank up the air-conditioning, burning more fossil fuel and only 
perpetuating the problem.
  I understand that sometimes it is hard to focus on climate change 
when the effects seem distant, but it should be impossible to ignore 
the immediate national security threat posed by climate change that is 
here today. Here in the Senate, in 2015, we passed a budget amendment 
with bipartisan support to promote ``national security by addressing 
human-induced climate change.'' That is what the amendment said. It got 
bipartisan support.
  The former Secretary of Defense, the former Director of National 
Intelligence, and the former admiral in charge of U.S. Naval forces in 
the Pacific have all warned us that climate change is a threat to our 
national security.
  Around the world, climate change is increasing natural disasters, 
refugee flows, and conflicts over basic resources like food and water, 
complicating American involvement and security. Climate change is 
linked to drought and crop loss and failure in southern Africa, leaving 
more than 6 million children malnourished by famine. It is increasing 
monsoons and heat waves in Pakistan, driving 11 million people out of 
their homes. It is even connected to water and food shortages that have 
intensified civil unrest from Egypt to Syria.
  At home, climate change already has cost us billions to relocate and 
buffer military infrastructure from coastal erosion and protect 
military installations from energy outages. At the U.S. Atlantic Fleet 
in Norfolk, VA, the largest naval installation in the world, sea levels 
have risen over 1 foot in the past 100 years. All the systems that 
support military readiness, from electrical utilities to housing at 
that base, are vulnerable to extreme flooding.
  When the Department of Defense ``recognizes the reality of climate 
change''--those are their words--``and the significant risk it poses to 
U.S. interests globally,'' we should listen. When the Nation's most 
recent national security strategy says that ``climate change is an 
urgent and growing threat,'' we should act.
  As a Senator from Colorado, I understand very well why people 
sometimes are frustrated when the EPA, for instance, does take action--
or sometimes when it doesn't take action.
  There are certainly some regulations that don't make sense, where a 
well-intentioned idea or an ill-intentioned idea--I think they are 
usually well-intentioned--from Washington ends up not making sense when 
it hits the ground. That is why I fought to revise EPA fuel storage 
tank regulations that hurt Colorado farmers, ranchers, and businesses 
in my home State. I supported an amendment making the Agency take a 
look at a new regulation that burdens families trying to remodel older 
homes. There are other regulations that I voted to get rid of. I 
supported, for instance, lifting the export ban on crude oil from the 
United States of America, a bill that we passed last year in connection 
with a 5-year extension of the tax credits for wind and solar energy, a 
great deal for the State of Colorado--both the lifting of the crude oil 
export ban and the extension of the tax credits for wind and solar.
  I have also supported and fought for our coal community. In Colorado, 
working with my colleague Senator Gardner, I fought to keep a Colorado 
mine open to protect good-paying jobs in my State. I am proud to have a 
hard hat in my office bearing the signatures of the people who work at 
that mine.
  I have to say tonight that the often-asserted claim that efforts to 
regulate carbon or more generally to protect our water and our air have 
significantly led to job losses in this country is false. This argument 
is a fraud perpetrated by politicians making promises that are broken 
from the start.
  The reality--and it is important to understand the reality so we can 
remedy the situation--the reality is that free market forces and not 
mostly Federal regulation are transforming American electricity 
production.
  American coal employment peaked in the early 1980s, long before we 
began seriously expanding natural energy. Natural gas has been gaining 
market share compared to coal since before 1990. Colorado, for example, 
has benefitted greatly from the natural gas boom. In almost every part 
of the United States, natural gas plants are now cheaper to build than 
coal plants.

[[Page 2831]]

Facilities that were built when I became a Senator 8 years ago were 
built to import natural gas and are now being retrofitted to export 
natural gas to the rest of the world. That is good for our environment, 
and it is good for the geopolitical position of the United States.
  Innovation is making renewable electricity more affordable for 
everybody. Between 2008 and 2015, the cost of wind power fell 41 
percent. The cost of large-scale solar installations fell 64 percent. 
This has led to a 95-percent increase in solar deployment in 2016 over 
the previous year. The annual installation doubled in 1 year.
  If we truly want to support our world communities, we should listen 
to Teddy Roosevelt, who once said that ``conservation and rural-life 
policies are really two sides of the same policy; and down at the 
bottom this policy rests upon the fundamental law that neither man nor 
nation can prosper unless, in dealing with the present, thought is 
steadily given to the future.''
  The truth about the future is that there may be a lot of sound 
reasons to review, revisit, and even retire any number of Federal 
regulations, and I will bet there are, but cutting regulation will not 
reopen shuttered coal mines.
  It is not about regulations or the EPA or about a War on Coal. 
Economic factors, market factors are driving the shift from coal to 
natural gas and renewables, and we need to recognize this shift and 
help coal communities adapt to a changing energy economy. They have 
contributed to building the economic vitality of this country. Their 
work helped us win World War II. We have to recognize the contribution; 
we can't just turn our backs. But we also need to acknowledge what is 
causing the changes that are occurring in our energy production because 
if we can't acknowledge the causes, we can't fix the problem; we can't 
make a meaningful difference for people in the communities that are 
affected by these changes; we can't fulfill what have become empty 
political promises instead of making real commitments on behalf of the 
American people.
  We also have to take advantage of the changes in energy production to 
fuel economic growth and create new jobs. Already, renewable energy is 
creating jobs throughout the country. Energy efficiency employs 2.2 
million Americans. Solar and wind companies employ more than 360,000 
Americans, including more than 13,000 in my home State of Colorado. 
Colorado now ranks first in the country in wind energy manufacturing. 
All together, clean energy employment grew 29 percent between 2009 and 
2014 in Colorado.
  This isn't a Bolshevik plot, as I said on the floor before. These are 
American jobs. These are manufacturing jobs. These are plants where it 
is not just about the wind turbine but about all of the supply chain 
that goes along with it that can't be made in China and shipped to the 
United States and installed here. These jobs in this supply chain are 
American jobs. They are good jobs that pay a good wage, and they are 
meaningful to our economy. Last year, solar jobs grew 17 times faster 
than jobs in the rest of the national economy. They increased by 20 
percent in Colorado in 1 year.
  The expansion of natural gas, as I mentioned earlier, is also aiding 
our transition to a cleaner energy economy. Between 2005 and 2012, 
natural gas production grew by 35 percent in the United States. In 
Colorado, it expanded by 139 percent. Colorado now ranks sixth in the 
country in natural gas production as 10 of the Nation's 100 largest 
natural gasfields are now located in Colorado.
  These industries together create good-paying jobs that can't be 
exported overseas; and all of these changes, taken together, are 
beginning to address climate change. From 2008 to 2015, the American 
energy sector reduced its carbon emissions by 9.5 percent. We reduced 
our carbon emissions by almost 10 percent while the country's economy 
grew by more than 10 percent, and we are starting to see the same trend 
around the world. Global emissions stayed flat in 2015 while the global 
economy grew. Turning our backs on reality is not a recipe for job 
creation in this country, but embracing the reality is.
  So I would ask this new President, after the campaign he ran and the 
promises he made, why he would promote policies that will kill American 
jobs and industries. Unfortunately--I regret to say this--even though 
70 percent of Coloradoans say climate change is real and that humankind 
is contributing to it, the answer to my question about this 
administration's policies comes back to what it believes--to what it 
believes is a debate on climate change.
  If we allow science to become debatable, we can contort our thinking 
to fit any fiction at all to support or undermine any public policy. We 
risk discarding facts we don't like and ignoring experts with whom we 
don't agree in favor of special interests, which often dominate our 
political system. Our country needs more from us than that. Our 
national defense demands more than that from us.
  When State Department analysts concluded with evidence, with science, 
that the Keystone Pipeline would not materially increase carbon 
emissions--facts lost in the phony debate here in Washington--I voted 
for it against intense opposition from my own party and many of my 
strongest supporters. That was a painful vote, one of the most painful 
I have ever taken and difficult to explain to many people I admire, but 
I was guided by the facts, not by politics, guided by the science, not 
by politics.
  We have always drawn strength as a country from our belief in 
science, our confidence in reason and evidence. It is what Harry Truman 
called our ``unflinching passion for knowledge and truth.'' In school, 
we teach children to support theories with facts and look to science to 
explain the world. When it comes to climate change, we cannot allow the 
narrow limits of political expediency and special interests to cloud 
our sound judgment. That is not a lesson we should be teaching our 
children who need us to act on climate. That would set a horrible 
example for the people who are coming after us.
  Our ultimate success in addressing climate change will rely on the 
same scientific method that sent us to the Moon and eradicated 
smallpox. If we surrender evidence to ideology, when it comes to 
climate change, we abandon the process of scientific inquiry. We leave 
ourselves completely unequipped to defend what we discover to be true. 
We loosen our grip on the science that allows us to understand that 
evolution is real and vaccines are effective; that something is true 
and something else is false. That, not doubt and denial, is the lesson 
we should leave our children; that we have the courage to confront this 
challenge without bias; that we have the wisdom to follow facts 
wherever they lead. That is what this Senate should do. That is what 
our country should do.
  We have seen the evidence now. It is not theoretical anymore that we 
can grow our economy, the fact that we will grow our economy, that we 
can conserve energy while we do it, that we can create entirely new 
industries and technologies to power the most significant economy that 
human beings have ever seen in the history of the world, and that we 
can deal with climate at the same time. The two are linked.
  Apparently, that is not what this President believes, and that is not 
what his nominee to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency believes. Because that is so far out of step with what Colorado 
believes and for all of the reasons I have talked about today and for 
the sake of our climate and for good-paying American jobs all over this 
country--but particularly in Colorado--I am compelled to vote no on the 
President's nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong opposition to 
President Trump's nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the next 
Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The reason is simple. In a choice between corporate polluters and 
people

[[Page 2832]]

who want to breathe air and drink water, Scott Pruitt sides with the 
corporate polluters. He has no business being the head of the EPA.
  During his nomination hearing, Mr. Pruitt had countless opportunities 
to answer for his record. His responses were flippant, evasive, and 
outright misleading. He has been asked repeatedly to provide records 
from his office concerning dealings with big oil companies, but he told 
the Senators that, hey, they should submit an open records request, 
hoping that his confirmation would be over long before those documents 
would see the light of day.
  Just a few hours ago, an Oklahoma district court judge ordered a dose 
of sunshine for Mr. Pruitt's dirty dealings from his perch as attorney 
general of Oklahoma. The judge has demanded that Mr. Pruitt cough up 
more than thousands of emails pertaining to his cozy relationship with 
Big Oil--emails he has been hiding from Oklahoma open records requests 
for over 2 years, but the Republican leadership is not interested in 
waiting. Its plan is to jam this nomination through tomorrow--4 days 
before the emails are slated to become public.
  Are you kidding me?
  If those emails show corruption, every Senator should have that 
information before--not after--they vote to put someone in charge of 
the EPA who may be there for years.
  Clean air and clean water used to be a nonpartisan issue. In earlier 
decades, leaders in both parties had the courage to say no to 
suffocating smog and towering plumes of toxic chemicals poisoning our 
children. Republicans and Democrats came together, and together they 
declared that access to clean air and clean water was a basic right for 
all Americans. We passed the Clean Air Act, and we passed the Clean 
Water Act. We updated those laws when necessary, and we did those 
things together.
  Together, we depend on the Environmental Protection Agency for three 
critical reasons: The EPA is the cop on the beat, protecting American 
families from corporate polluters that would put profit ahead of 
safety. It watches out for us and for our children; the EPA exists 
because pollution knows no State borders. What is burned at the 
powerplant in Ohio is breathed by children across Massachusetts; and 
the EPA takes on the ever-changing task of researching, monitoring, and 
regulating toxic emissions because the job is far too great for any one 
State to tackle.
  To do all of this, the EPA routinely turns to local governments, 
businesses, and innovative workers for local solutions; the EPA turned 
to the University of Massachusetts to create a research center to 
assist smalltown water systems; the EPA turned to towns along Cape Cod 
and on Martha's Vineyard to pursue innovative solutions to increase 
coastal resiliency as sea levels have risen; and the EPA recently 
recognized New Bedford's exceptional work in monitoring industrial 
waste discharge in the city's collection system.
  Across Massachusetts and across the Nation, the EPA sets big national 
goals that help inspire ingenious local solutions. The EPA is one of 
our great successes as a nation, but that success has not come without 
a fight. Each time the EPA has taken a step to clean our air, industry 
has poured more and more money into the debate, yelling that regulation 
is just too costly and that companies can never survive if they have to 
clean up their act.
  In the 40 years following the Clean Air Act, emissions of common air 
pollutants fell nearly 70 percent while the number of private sector 
jobs doubled. Industry talks about the costs of pollution controls 
because dirty is cheap. Clean air saves more than 160,000 lives each 
year. Clean air saves more than 3 million schooldays our children would 
have collectively lost. Clean air saves 13 million workdays the hard-
working, healthy Americans simply can't afford to miss.
  Scott Pruitt doesn't measure success by this yardstick. No. He 
measures success by how happy his corporate donors are. As Big Oil's 
go-to attorney general from Oklahoma, Pruitt has spent the last 6 years 
trying to silence the lifesaving, data-driven work of dedicated EPA 
employees and scientists. And now, those big polluters have their 
fantasy EPA nominee--someone who will work on their side and not on the 
side of the American people.
  How about a couple of examples. When EPA issued a rule to limit 
mercury, arsenic, and other toxic chemical emissions from coal 
powerplants, Mr. Pruitt questioned whether mercury poses a health 
hazard. Mercury is a well-known neurotoxin. It means that it poisons 
the nervous system. And Scott Pruitt thinks he should question whether 
it poses any health hazard. Wow.
  Or maybe it is this example. When the EPA moved to reduce leaks of 
methane, a greenhouse gas that is 30 times more potent than 
CO2, he turned the Oklahoma AG's office into a clearinghouse 
for big oil to pursue lawsuits attacking the EPA. Scott Pruitt has 
spent so much time with his campaign donors that he honestly appears 
incapable of understanding the difference between the financial 
interests of millionaires who run giant oil companies and the health 
and well-being of the 4 million human beings who actually live in 
Oklahoma.
  The people need a voice more than ever. For generations, Oklahoma has 
had very few earthquakes. Then, oil companies decided to up production, 
to pull every last drop of oil out of the ground. But with every drop 
of oil came useless, toxic radioactive salt water waste, and it has to 
go somewhere. So they took the cheapest option available: Pump billions 
of barrels of wastewater deep underground, under immense pressure, and 
that is when the problems started. Suddenly, earthquakes--big 
earthquakes with a magnitude of 3.0 and above, started occurring every 
day across Oklahoma.
  Here was Mr. Pruitt, the State attorney general, the people's lawyer. 
What did he do? Did he seek relief for the families that were stiffed 
by insurance companies? Did he join residents who were suing to stop 
the drilling while their homes crumbled? Did he even pretend to do 
something--you know, like maybe issue a strongly worded press release 
supporting frightened citizens? No, not Mr. Pruitt. No, Mr. Pruitt 
stood by his friends in the oil industry, and the heck with everybody 
else.
  Mr. Pruitt has been consistent in his work for big oil. As attorney 
general, he dismantled the environmental protection unit in his 
office--dismantled the environmental protection unit. He appointed a 
billionaire oil man to be his 2014 campaign chair, and he ignored the 
citizens he was sworn to protect. That is the measure of Mr. Pruitt as 
a public servant.
  A State attorney general is supposed to serve the people. Right now, 
Massachusetts attorney general Maura Healey is leading the case to 
prove that ExxonMobil deliberately deceived the public about the impact 
of climate change on our economy, our environment, our health, and our 
future. Good for Maura. Did Scott Pruitt join that suit? Of course not. 
Pruitt ran to the defense of one of the world's largest corporations, 
whining about how that corporation felt bullied. Instead of working as 
the attorney general for Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has served as the 
attorney general for Exxon.
  Finally, Scott Pruitt has the nerve to say that the cause of climate 
change is ``subject to more debate.'' More debate? We had that debate 
in the 1980s, in the 1990s, in the 2000s. Maybe Mr. Pruitt missed it, 
buried under a pile of big oil money.
  So let me just offer a summary. For well over a century, we spewed 
fossil fuel filth into our atmosphere. And, yes, this allowed us to 
fuel the thirsty appetite of our 20th century economy. But that 
blistering pace came at a price.
  Our planet is getting hotter. Our coasts are threatened by furious 
storm surges that sweep away homes and devastate our largest cities. 
Our poorest neighborhoods are one bad storm away from being under 
water. Our naval bases are under attack--not by enemy ships but by 
rising seas; droughts and wildfires are all too familiar across the 
country. Refugees are fleeing homes

[[Page 2833]]

that are no longer livable. And the risk of rapidly spreading diseases 
like malaria and Zika is on the rise.
  Our coastal communities don't have time for politicians who deny 
science. Our farmers don't have time for more debate. Our children 
don't have time for more cowards who will not stand up to big oil 
companies defrauding the American people.
  Scott Pruitt has been working hard for big oil to dismantle the EPA, 
and now, President Trump wants to give him that chance.
  Where are the Senators who will stand up for the health, the welfare, 
and the safety of their citizens? Where are the Senators who will stand 
up for the people's right to breathe clean air and drink clean water? 
Where are the Senators who will have the courage to demand action on 
climate change so that our children will have a chance to inherent a 
livable Earth?
  In the end, despite this despicable record, if the Republicans link 
arms again, there will not be enough of us to stop this nomination. But 
make no mistake, if President Trump wants a fight over the health of 
our children, a fight over the creation of clean energy jobs, a fight 
over the very future of our planet, then we will fight every step of 
the way.
  We will fight alongside moms and dads who know the terror of a 
childhood asthma attack. We will fight alongside the cancer victims. We 
will fight alongside the fishermen and the hunters. We will fight 
alongside the families of Flint, MI, and everywhere else in America 
where families cannot safely turn on their water taps or step outside 
and take a deep breath.
  We are all in this together.
  People in Massachusetts care deeply about preserving a safe and 
healthy environment for our kids and our grandkids. We see it as a 
moral question. And I receive letters from people all across the State, 
describing how important clean air and clean water are to them and how 
worried they are about what Scott Pruitt leading the EPA will mean for 
our most vital natural resources. I hear those concerns and I share 
those concerns.
  I would like to read just a few of the many letters that I have 
received about this nomination.
  Edward from Dennis wrote to me on behalf of the Association to 
Preserve Cape Cod about the importance of the EPA to coastal 
communities in Massachusetts. Here is Edward's letter:

       The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC), the Cape Cod 
     region's leading nonprofit environmental education and 
     advocacy organization, writes to state our strong opposition 
     to the appointment of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt 
     for the position of Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency. We urge you to vote against his 
     nomination.
       APCC is deeply concerned that Mr. Pruitt's record of 
     vigorously opposing the efforts of the EPA to protect the 
     nation's water and air quality is in direct conflict with his 
     responsibilities as EPA Administrator to ensure that the 
     agency's important work continues. In fact, his record 
     clearly shows that his loyalties side with polluters instead 
     of with the environment and the welfare of the American 
     people. Of particular concern is Mr. Pruitt's refusal to 
     accept the science of climate change and the implications 
     this has for EPA's ongoing efforts to reduce greenhouse gas 
     emissions.
       In addition, the EPA has most recently played a vital role 
     in furthering efforts to protect and restore water quality 
     through its Southeast New England Program (SNEP) for 
     Watershed Restoration, a program that has greatly benefited 
     coastal communities in Rhode Island and southeastern 
     Massachusetts. We worry that important initiatives such as 
     the SNEP program, which was originally proposed by Senator 
     Reed with the strong support from each of you, will be in 
     jeopardy under the oversight of Mr. Pruitt, should he be 
     confirmed as EPA Administrator.
       The New England states, as well as the entire nation, have 
     made significant strides forward in addressing the protection 
     of our air and water. However, much more needs to be 
     accomplished. With so much at stake, we cannot afford to step 
     backward in our effort to protect the environment. We, 
     therefore, urge you to oppose the nomination of Mr. Pruitt 
     for EPA Administrator.

  Thanks, Edward, for writing, and thanks to all of you at the 
Association to Preserve Cape Cod for the work you are doing every 
single day. It makes a real difference.
  While all sorts of people have written to my office about Mr. Pruitt, 
I have noticed that a lot of people are writing in about kids--their 
kids, kids they work with, or just kids in general. My constituents are 
concerned about Scott Pruitt's commitment to protecting the air our 
kids breathe and the water they drink, and I share those concerns.
  I heard from Mary in Worcester, who is concerned about the effects of 
environmental toxins like lead on children. She is concerned both as a 
parent and as a family doctor. Here is what Mary had to say:

       With so much focus in Washington on ensuring politicians 
     are held to a strong ethical standard, I ask you to oppose 
     the nomination of Scott Pruitt as EPA Administrator. I wrote 
     to you yesterday asking the same, but after the hearing 
     yesterday, it is increasingly clear that Mr. Pruitt is unfit.
       In addition to being a parent, I am also a Family Medicine 
     physician. Rarely, I see children who are exposed to lead 
     through environmental sources. This is rare because lead has 
     been regulated, and as such rates of lead poisoning, and the 
     accompanying irreversible brain damage, have plummeted.
       But yesterday Mr. Pruitt revealed that he knows nothing 
     about this issue, responding to Senator Cardin, ``Senator, 
     that is something I have not reviewed nor know about.''
       I continue to ask you to oppose him and to encourage 
     colleagues to do the same.

  Thank you for writing, Mary. That is why I am here tonight--to 
encourage my colleagues to oppose him.
  I heard from Elizabeth in Belchertown, as well. Here is what she 
wrote:

       As a resident of MA and a teacher of AP Environmental 
     Science in a public high school in western MA, I am writing 
     to express my concern about the appointment of Scott Pruitt 
     as director of the EPA. He appears to be the exact opposite 
     of the qualifications and perspective of a person who should 
     have that position. As you know, he has close ties to fossil 
     fuels, has repeatedly sued the EPA, avoided mercury 
     legislation, and espoused the belief that the EPA is too 
     powerful. I urge you to work with other Senators to block 
     this appointment.

  Thank you, Elizabeth. The work that you are doing, that teachers are 
doing, is more vital than ever now, and I share your concerns. Thank 
you.
  A man from Boston wrote to me with concerns about Scott Pruitt's ties 
to fossil fuel companies, and here is what he said:

       As a constituent who cares about our environment, I want 
     you to know I am deeply concerned about the nomination of 
     Scott Pruitt to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.
       Scott Pruitt is firmly in the pocket of the oil and gas 
     industry. He is not concerned with the world we leave for our 
     children. As a father and an educator, I am fighting his 
     nomination because I have a responsibility to care about the 
     world I leave children and not merely the wealth my cronies 
     accumulate.
       Pruitt has actively worked to dismantle protections for 
     clean air and clean water that people and birds need to 
     thrive. The EPA must adhere to science and support common-
     sense solutions for ensuring a healthy environment and stable 
     climate for people and wildlife.
       Please oppose confirming Scott Pruitt and demand a nominee 
     instead who will represent the vast majority of Americans--
     regardless of party affiliation--who support strong action 
     and safeguards for our air, water, and climate.

  I couldn't agree more with what he said.
  Wendy from Newton wrote to me about the concerns as well. Here is 
what she had to say:

       Dear Senator, I am appalled and scared by the possibility 
     of Scott Pruitt to head the EPA. It will be disgraceful if he 
     is confirmed. To appoint someone who stands against 
     everything that agency is for is cynical, disrespectful and 
     dangerous in this urgent time of climate change. Now more 
     than ever we need a strong EPA that believes in science and 
     will protect us from environmental disaster. I hope you will 
     do everything you possibly can to fight against Pruitt 
     getting confirmed.

  Thank you for writing.
  I also heard from Arlene in Wayland, who is worried about what the 
future of the EPA means for her two grandchildren. Here is what she had 
to say:

       Senator Warren, please assure your constituents that you 
     will not support Scott Pruitt's nomination to head the EPA. 
     Mr. Pruitt is an enemy of the agency and of the future of our 
     environment. He has stood in the way of the agency's purpose 
     to protect our air and water. He is ignorant of the findings 
     of climate science and medical studies on toxicity, has dealt 
     dishonestly with Congress, and is so obviously in the pocket 
     of the fossil fuel industry. Please use your considerable 
     persuasiveness and rigor to convince your colleagues in the 
     Senate to ditch

[[Page 2834]]

     his nomination. The future of my two grandchildren depends on 
     it. Thank you.

  Thank you for your note, Arlene. I am doing my best, and so are the 
rest of the Democrats. We just need some Republicans to help us out 
here.
  Joan from Maynard reached out to me about her experience working with 
children who have suffered from lead poisoning. Here is what Joan 
wrote:

       I have been an Educational Advocate for children with 
     disabilities for 24 years. I've worked with children who 
     suffer from lead poisoning, and they are heartbreaking. Even 
     the smallest exposure has life-long profound consequences. I 
     haven't personally seen anything the level of what has 
     happened in Flint, MI, but I know that it's a tragedy for a 
     generation of children in Flint.
       Pollution of our waters is just one of the risks we face if 
     Scott Pruitt is approved. There are countless more, many 
     evident and others not readily apparent, but ready to unfold. 
     Please, please fight this appointment in every way you can.

  Thank you, Joan, for writing and for the important work you do. 
Believe me, I am fighting in every way I can.
  A man from North Falmouth wrote to me, worried that the progress we 
have made on protecting public health and the future of our planet is 
in danger. Here is what he said:

       Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is a lifelong ally 
     of corporate polluters. Pruitt's nomination is a clear threat 
     to the nation's public health and the progress made on 
     common-sense pollution standards. I cannot tolerate the 
     appointment of a fossil fuel cheerleader to lead the nation's 
     environmental protection efforts. In 2014, Pruitt literally 
     acted as a messenger between Devon Energy and the EPA in an 
     attempt to stifle public health protections.
       Please continue to defend the Clean Power Plan and methane 
     pollution standards against the influence of the fossil fuel 
     industry. 64% of Americans are concerned about climate 
     change, we deserve a leader who will take action to protect 
     air quality.

  Thanks for writing. I really appreciate it.
  Since President Trump nominated Mr. Pruitt, I have received hundreds 
of letters like these from people in Massachusetts who are worried 
about what he will mean for the environment and for the future of our 
planet, but I have also heard from the experts, people who understand 
the ins and outs of the EPA and its mission. Hundreds of former EPA 
employees who have serious concerns about Mr. Pruitt's record on the 
environment sent a letter to me and my colleagues here in the Senate. 
Here is what they wrote:

       We write as former employees of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) to share our concerns about Oklahoma 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications to serve as 
     the next EPA Administrator in light of his record in 
     Oklahoma. Our perspective is not partisan. Having served 
     under both Republican and Democratic presidents, we recognize 
     each new Administration's right to pursue different policies 
     within the parameters of existing law and to ask Congress to 
     change the laws that protect public health and the 
     environment as it sees fit.
       However, every EPA Administrator has a fundamental 
     obligation to act in the public's interest based on current 
     law and the best available science. Mr. Pruitt's record 
     raises serious concerns about whose interests he has served 
     to date and whether he agrees with the longstanding tenets of 
     U.S. environmental law.
       Our nation has made tremendous progress in ensuring that 
     every American has clean air to breathe, clean water to drink 
     and uncontaminated land on which to live, work and play. 
     Anyone who visits Beijing is reminded of what some cities in 
     the U.S. once looked like before we went to work as a people 
     to combat pollution. Much of the EPA's work involves 
     preserving those gains, which should not be taken for 
     granted. There are also emerging new threats as well as 
     serious gaps in our environmental safety net, as the drinking 
     water crisis in Flint, Michigan, painfully demonstrates.
       Our environmental laws are based on a partnership that 
     requires EPA to set national standards and give states 
     latitude when implementing them so long as certain minimum 
     criteria are satisfied. This approach recognizes that 
     Americans have an equal right to clean air and water, no 
     matter where they live, and allows states to compete for 
     business without having to sacrifice public health or 
     environmental quality.
       Our environmental laws include provisions directing EPA to 
     allow for a ``margin of safety'' when assessing risks, which 
     is intended to limit exposure to pollutants when it is 
     reasonable to expect they may harm the public health, even 
     when all the scientific evidence is not yet in. For example, 
     EPA's first Administrator, Bill Ruckelshaus, chose to limit 
     the amount of lead in gasoline before all doubt about its 
     harmfulness to public health was erased. His actions spared 
     much of the harm that some countries still face as a result 
     of the devastating effects of lead on human health. 
     Similarly, early action to reduce exposure to fine particle 
     pollution helped avoid thousands of premature deaths from 
     heart and lung disease. The magnitude and severity of those 
     risks did not become apparent until much later.
       Mr. Pruitt's record and public statements strongly suggest 
     that he does not share the vision or agree with the 
     underlying principles of our environmental statutes. Mr. 
     Pruitt has shown no interest in enforcing those laws, a 
     critically important function for EPA. While serving as 
     Oklahoma's top law enforcement officer, Mr. Pruitt issued 
     more than 50 press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn 
     EPA standards to limit mercury emissions from power plants, 
     reduce smog levels in cities and regional haze in parks, 
     clean up the Chesapeake Bay and control greenhouse emissions.
       In contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's many press releases refer 
     to any action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or 
     to actually reduce pollution. This track record likely 
     reflects his disturbing decision to close the environmental 
     enforcement unit in his office while establishing a new 
     litigation team to challenge EPA and other federal agencies. 
     He has claimed credit for an agreement to protect the 
     Illinois River that did little more than confirm phosphorus 
     limits established much earlier, while delaying their 
     enforcement another three years.
       In a similar vein, Mr. Pruitt has gone to disturbing 
     lengths to advance the views and interests of business. For 
     example, he signed and sent a letter as Oklahoma Attorney 
     General criticizing EPA estimates of emissions from oil and 
     gas wells, without disclosing that it had been drafted in its 
     entirety by Devon Energy. He filed suit on behalf of Oklahoma 
     to block a California law requiring humane treatment of 
     poultry. The federal court dismissed the case after finding 
     that the lawsuit was brought not to benefit the citizens of 
     Oklahoma but a handful of large egg producers perfectly 
     capable of representing their own interests. To mount his 
     challenge to EPA's rules to reduce carbon pollution from 
     power plants, he took the unusual step of accepting free help 
     from a private law firm. In contrast, there is little or no 
     evidence of Mr. Pruitt taking initiative to protect and 
     advance public health and environmental protection in his 
     state.
       Mr. Pruitt's office has apparently acknowledged 3,000 
     emails and other documents reflecting communications with 
     certain oil and gas companies, but has yet to make any of 
     these available in response to a Freedom of Information Act 
     request filed more than two years ago.
       Contrary to the cooperative federalism that he promotes, 
     Mr. Pruitt has suggested that EPA should refrain from trying 
     to control pollution that crosses state lines. For example, 
     he intervened to support a Farm Bureau lawsuit that would 
     have overturned a cooperative agreement between five states 
     and EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay (the court rejected 
     the challenge). When asked how a state can protect its 
     citizens from pollution that originates outside its borders, 
     Mr. Pruitt said in his Senate testimony that states should 
     resolve these disputes on their own, with EPA providing 
     ``informational'' support once an agreement is reached. But 
     the 1972 Clean Water Act directs EPA to review state water 
     quality plans, require any improvements needed to make waters 
     ``fishable and swimmable,'' and to review and approve plans 
     to limit pollutant loads to protect water quality. EPA's 
     power to set standards and limit pollution that crosses state 
     lines is exactly what ensures every American clean air and 
     water, and gives states the incentive to negotiate and 
     resolve transboundary disputes.
       We are most concerned about Mr. Pruitt's reluctance to 
     accept and to act on the strong scientific consensus on 
     climate change and act accordingly. Our country's own 
     National Research Council, the principal operating arm of the 
     National Academies of Science and Engineering, concluded in a 
     2010 report requested by Congress that human activity is 
     altering the climate to an extent that poses grave risks to 
     Americans' health and welfare. More recent scientific data 
     and analyses have only confirmed the Council's conclusion and 
     added to the urgency of addressing the problem.
       Despite this and other authoritative warnings about the 
     dangers of climate change, Mr. Pruitt persists in pointing to 
     uncertainty about the precise extent of humanity's 
     contribution to the problem as a basis for resisting taking 
     any regulatory action to help solve it. At his Senate 
     confirmation hearing, he stated that ``science tells us that 
     the climate is changing, and that human activity in some 
     manner impacts that change. The ability to measure with 
     precision the degree and extent of that impact, and what to 
     do about it, are subject to continuing debate and dialogue, 
     and well it should be.'' This is a familiar dodge--
     emphasizing uncertainty about the precise amount of 
     humanity's contribution while ignoring the broad scientific 
     consensus that human activities are largely responsible for 
     dangerous warming of our planet and that action is urgently 
     needed before it is too late.

[[Page 2835]]

       Mr. Pruitt's indulgence in this dodge raises the 
     fundamental question of whether he agrees with the 
     precautionary principle reflected in our nation's 
     environmental statutes. Faithful execution of our 
     environmental laws requires effectively combating climate 
     change to minimize its potentially catastrophic impacts 
     before it is too late.
       The American people have been served by EPA Administrators, 
     Republicans and Democrats, who have embraced their 
     responsibility to protect public health and the environment. 
     Different administrators have come to different conclusions 
     about how best to apply the law in view of the science, and 
     many of their decisions have been challenged in court, 
     sometimes successfully, for either going too far or not far 
     enough. But in the large majority of cases it was evident to 
     us that they put the public's welfare ahead of private 
     interests. Scott Pruitt has not demonstrated this same 
     commitment.
       Thank you for considering our views.

  Thank you to all who signed that letter and for the incredibly 
important work that you have done to protect our environment. I am with 
you all the way.
  Next, I wish to read an article published by The Atlantic that uses 
Scott Pruitt's actions to critique his appointment to head the EPA. 
Actions speak volumes louder than words, and his tell a pretty 
compelling story of exactly how he will lead the Agency. Here is what 
it says:

       While broad strokes of Trump's policies were never in 
     doubt, there was often enough bizarreness to wonder what he 
     would do with the powers of the Environmental Protection 
     Agency.
       On Wednesday, those questions were all but settled. Trump 
     has chosen E. Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of Oklahoma, 
     to lead the EPA. . . .
       In a certain light, Pruitt is an inspired choice to lead 
     the EPA, as he has made fighting the agency a hallmark of his 
     career. His own website calls him ``a leading advocate 
     against the EPA's activist agenda.'' The significance could 
     not be more clear: As he promised on the trail, Trump will 
     likely use the powers of the presidency and the legal 
     expertise of Pruitt to block or weaken the Obama 
     administration's attempts to fight climate change.
       And Trump will be able to try for more than that. For what 
     distinguishes Pruitt's career is not just his opposition to 
     using regulations to tackle climate change, but his 
     opposition to using regulation to tackle any environmental 
     problem at all. Since he was elected Oklahoma's attorney 
     general, in 2010, Pruitt has racked up a sizable record--
     impressive in its number of lawsuits if not in its number of 
     victories--of suing the EPA.
       Many of these suits did not target climate-related 
     policies. Instead, they singled out anti-pollution measures, 
     initiated under presidential administrations, that tend to be 
     popular with the public.
       In 2014, for instance, Pruitt sued to block the EPA's 
     Regional Haze Rule. The rule is built on a 15-year old 
     program meant to ensure that air around national parks is 
     especially clear. Pruitt lost his case.
       Last year, he sued to block a rule restricting how much 
     mercury could be emitted into the air by coal plants. He lost 
     that, too.
       And early in his tenure, he sued to keep the EPA from 
     settling lawsuits brought by environmental groups like the 
     Sierra Club. That one was dismissed.
       He has brought other suits against EPA anti-pollution 
     programs--like one against new rules meant to reduce the 
     amount of ozone in the air--that haven't been heard in court 
     yet. While ozone is beneficial to humans high in the 
     atmosphere, it can be intensely damaging when it accumulates 
     at ground level, worsening asthma and inducing premature 
     deaths. The American Lung Association calls it ``one of the 
     most dangerous'' pollutants in the United States.
       All this is not to say that Pruitt has omitted climate 
     regulations from his litigation. His most common target has 
     been the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's set of 
     Clean Air Act rules meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
     from power plants. The Clean Power Plan is Obama's main 
     mechanism for pushing the United States to meet its pledge 
     under the Paris Agreement.
       Pruitt began suing the EPA to block the Clean Power Plan 
     more than two years ago. Now, Oklahoma is one of the 28 
     states challenging the agency in court, and it helped succeed 
     in getting the Supreme Court to block the rules in February.
       But Pruitt's understanding of the bill seems not entirely 
     legally minded in two significant ways. First, Pruitt's 
     knowledge of global warming appears to be lacking, at best. 
     Earlier this year, for instance, he wrote in the National 
     Review that ``scientists continue to disagree about the 
     degree and the extent of global warming and its connection to 
     the actions of mankind.''
       While this sounds reasonable, it is not true. The 
     overwhelming consensus among scientists who study the Earth 
     is that humans are largely to blame for the planet's warming. 
     Climate scientists understood this to be the case since at 
     least the early 1990s, and since then, scholarly consensus on 
     the issue has only strengthened. The majority of scientists 
     also believe that global warming will be quite harmful; the 
     scientific debate about its ``degree and extent'' is only 
     about how bad it will be and how soon its consequences will 
     kick in.
       Second, Pruitt has worked extremely closely with oil and 
     gas companies in opposing the plan. In one case, a New York 
     Times investigation revealed that Pruitt sent an official 
     letter to the EPA, bearing his signature and letterhead, that 
     had been almost completely written by lawyers at Devon 
     Energy, a major oil and gas company. It was delivered to 
     Pruitt's office by Devon's chief lobbyist.
       Energy firms and lobbyists, including Devon, have donated 
     generously to the Republican Attorneys General Association, 
     which Pruitt has led. In interviews after the Times report, 
     Pruitt described the collaboration as a kind of constituent 
     service, saying that Devon is based in Oklahoma City. He 
     agreed with the letter's legal reasoning, he said, so he 
     signed it.
       ``I don't think there is anything secretive in what we've 
     done,'' Pruitt told The Oklahoman. ``We've been very open 
     about the efforts of my office in responding to federal 
     overreach.''
       Now Pruitt could be the one doing the federal reaching. 
     Environmental groups immediately condemned Trump's selection 
     of him. ``The EPA plays an absolutely vital role in enforcing 
     long-standing policies that protect the health and safety of 
     Americans, based on the best available science,'' said Ken 
     Kimmell, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a 
     statement. ``Pruitt has a clear record of hostility to the 
     EPA's mission, and he is a completely inappropriate choice to 
     lead it.''
       Once, it had seemed like perhaps Trump--who speaks often of 
     his adoration for clean air and clean water--would bypass 
     those old fights and only target Obama's new climate rules. 
     But with Pruitt leading his EPA, it seems that Trump's 
     administration will act like its GOP predecessors. Whether it 
     is successful depends on the Senate, on the courts, and on 
     how well environmental advocates make their case to the 
     public.

  Finally, I wish to share a few excerpts from an in-depth New York 
Times article that uncovered Scott Pruitt's extensive ties to energy 
companies. The article clearly explains the massive conflicts of 
interest that Mr. Pruitt would face as Administrator of the EPA. Here 
is what it says:

       The letter to the Environmental Protection Agency from 
     Attorney General Scott Pruitt of Oklahoma carried a blunt 
     accusation: Federal regulators were grossly overestimating 
     the amount of air pollution caused by energy companies 
     drilling new natural gas wells in his state.
       But Mr. Pruitt left out one critical point. The three-page 
     letter was written by lawyers for Devon Energy, one of 
     Oklahoma's biggest oil and gas companies, and was delivered 
     to him by Devon's chief of lobbying.
       ``Outstanding!'' William F. Whitsitt, who at the time 
     directed the government relations at the company, said in a 
     note to Mr. Pruitt's office. The attorney general's staff had 
     taken Devon's draft, copied it onto state government 
     stationery with only a few word changes, and sent it to 
     Washington with the attorney general's signature. ``The 
     timing of the letter is great, given our meeting this Friday 
     with both the E.P.A. and the White House.''
       Mr. Whitsitt then added, ``Please pass along Devon's thanks 
     to Attorney General Pruitt.''
       The email exchange from October 2011, obtained through an 
     open-records request, offers a hint of the unprecedented, 
     secretive alliance that Mr. Pruitt and other Republican 
     attorneys general have formed with some of the nation's top 
     energy producers to push back against the Obama regulatory 
     agenda, an investigation by the New York Times has found.
       Out of public view, corporate representatives and attorneys 
     general are coordinating legal strategy and other efforts to 
     fight federal regulations, according to a review of thousands 
     of emails and court documents and dozens of interviews.
       For Mr. Pruitt, the benefits have been clear. Lobbyists and 
     company officials have been notably solicitous, helping him 
     raise his profile as president for two years of the 
     Republican Attorneys General Association, a post he used to 
     help start what he and his allies called the Rule of Law 
     Campaign, which was intended to push back against Washington.
       ``We are living in the midst of a constitutional crisis,'' 
     Mr. Pruitt told energy industry lobbyists and conservative 
     state legislators at a conference in Dallas in July, after 
     being welcomed with a standing ovation. ``The trajectory of 
     our nation is at risk and at stake as we respond to what is 
     going on.''
       Mr. Pruitt has responded aggressively and with a lot of 
     helping hands. Energy industry lobbyists drafted letters for 
     him to send to the EPA, the Interior Department, the Office 
     of Management and Budget, and even President Obama, the Times 
     found.

[[Page 2836]]

       Industries that he regulates have joined him as plaintiffs 
     in court challenges, a departure from the usual role of a 
     state attorney general, who traditionally sues companies to 
     force compliance with state law.
       Energy industry lobbyists have also distributed draft 
     legislation to attorneys general and asked them to help push 
     it through state legislatures to give the attorneys general 
     clearer authority to challenge the Obama regulatory agenda, 
     the documents show. And it is an emerging practice that 
     several attorneys general say threatens the integrity of the 
     office.

  The message is clear across Massachusetts and across the Nation: Big 
Oil's go-to attorney general is Scott Pruitt, and he has no business 
running the EPA. He has proven over and over again that he will put 
short-term industry profits ahead of the health of our children. This 
nominee has no interest in protecting every American's right to breathe 
clean air and drink clean water. We cannot put someone so opposed to 
the goals of the EPA in charge of that very Agency.
  For these reasons, I will be voting no on Scott Pruitt. I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________