U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–822 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 115–79 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 1–2, 2017 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

KAMALA HARRIS, California 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 1–2, 2017 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Capito, Hon. Shelley Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia ...... 14 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 15 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 17 

Ernst, Hon. Joni, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ........................................ 17 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 18 

Moran, Hon. Jerry, U.S. Senator from the State of Kansas ................................ 19 

Sullivan, Hon. Dan, U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska ................................ 21 

Rounds, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of South Dakota .................... 22 

(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2017–THURSDAY, 

FEBRUARY 2, 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:47 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, 

Fischer, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, and Sullivan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. I call this business meeting to 

order. 

I have been informed that no Democrats will be in attendance 

this morning, in an effort to intentionally delay and obstruct the 

nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

It is a disappointing turn of events. But let’s review some history. 

On January 21st, 1993, EPA Administrator nominee Carol 

Browner, under Democrat President Bill Clinton, was confirmed by 

the Senate. This is 1 day after he took office. 

On January 30th, 2001, EPA Administrator nominee Christy 

Todd Whitman, under Republican President George W. Bush, was 

confirmed by the full Senate. 

On January 22nd, 2009, EPA Administrator nominee Lisa Jackson, under Democrat President Barack Obama, was confirmed by 

the full Senate, 2 days after he took office. 

Today is February 1st, and the minority has now obstructed even 

having a vote in Committee on President Donald Trump’s nominee, 

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. I hope this is not the new 

normal. 

We cannot afford for the EPA to go without an Administrator for 

the foreseeable future. This will impact future EPA Administrator 

nominees. These precedents for this delay will likely have longterm impacts after today’s nominee has left office. 

This boycott not only affects the EPA, but it also prevents this 

Committee from organizing. No one can complain about the Trump 

administration and its policies, if they sabotage the very formation 

of the Committee that is supposed to conduct the oversight. 

2 

There are a number of consequences to not having a fully functional EPA and a fully functional Senate Environment and Public 

Works Committee. There are key issues for the EPA and the Senate EPW Committee that we could and should be working on, including Waters of the United States policy, cold war legacy pollution cleanup, addressing brownfields, and ensuring implementation 

of the new TSCA legislation, to name a few. None of this is made 

better by this boycott. This amounts to nothing more than political 

theater at the expense of working on issues that we care about. 

The Ranking Member and the minority have complained about 

the nomination process. Let’s set the record straight. 

Attorney General Pruitt has been through an extremely thorough 

and fair process. I would like to read some quotes from the members of the minority who have praised the unprecedented hearing 

we had on the nominee while the hearing was occurring. 

The Ranking Member stated, ‘‘I appreciate the way you’ve conducted this hearing today. I appreciate all the members coming and 

coming back again and again.’’ 

My colleague from New Jersey stated, ‘‘First of all, to you, sir, 

this is my first time going through nomination hearings. You have 

been very generous with the way you have been conducting these 

hearings. I think it is important,’’ he said, ‘‘that we note that, and 

I appreciate the number of rounds that you are doing.’’ 

My colleague from Rhode Island stated, ‘‘I think that you have 

been fair.’’ 

These members are correct. The hearing was fair. It was historic 

in its length of time for member questions of the nominee. 

Let’s be clear. Attorney General Pruitt has answered more questions than any past EPA Administrator nominee in recent memory. 

He answered a total of more than 1,200 questions. He answered 

over 1,000 more questions than the EPA Administrator nominees 

for the incoming Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. 

The letter that the Ranking Member sent me, dated January 

30th, highlighted what he believed were a lack of substantive answers from the nominee. To that I would quote my colleague from 

Rhode Island in 2013, when he stated during the McCarthy nomination business meeting that ‘‘it is not the minority’s right to get 

nominees to agree with them in advance.’’ The minority may not 

like all of Attorney General Pruitt’s answers, but he has given 

them answers. 

Ranking Member Carper made a prescient prediction during the 

first nomination business meeting for Gina McCarthy in 2013 when 

he said, ‘‘Someday there will be a Republican president.’’ He said, 

‘‘Someday the Republicans are going to be in the majority in the 

Senate.’’ He said, ‘‘And that Republican president is going to have 

his or her cabinet in place.’’ He said, ‘‘I think you can nominate a 

Governor. A president nominates good people, honest people, hard 

working people. They ought to get at least a vote.’’ He continued 

by saying, ‘‘They ought to get a vote, and I think they ought to get 

our support.’’ 

Well, Mr. Pruitt ought to get at least a vote. He ought to get a 

vote. He ought to get our support. 

With that, I would recognize other members of the Committee 

who would like to speak. 

3 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In case you were 

wondering why our audience looks a little more distinguished than 

normal, we are graced by the Oklahoma Wheat Growers Association, all of whom know the nominee personally. 

Thank you for the chance to get on the record, as we all want 

to do, concerning this nominee. He is a personal friend of those of 

us in Oklahoma, and he has gone beyond being responsive to this 

Committee. And I think it is important to get into the record, because we are making the record here, what he has actually been 

through. 

He went through four rounds of questions. That is more rounds 

than any other nominee in the recorded history of this Committee. 

In addition, he has answered 206 of our questions during that time. 

However, that was just the beginning of it because, once the hearing was over, our friends on the other side of the dais submitted 

1,078 questions for the record. 

Now, the Chairman has talked about some of the previous nominees. In this case, during the Browner nomination, she had a total 

of 137 questions for the record. He had 1,078. During Christy Todd 

Whitman, she had 178 questions for the record. And when Lisa 

Jackson was here, she had only 133. 

So he had 1,078 questions for the record, including the extra 

questions from Senator Carper asked Pruitt, in his December 28th 

letter, as Pruitt promised he would. This means that he answered 

1,000 more questions than any other Administrator nominee in the 

past three presidential administrations. 

Last week EPW—that is Environment and Public Works—Democrats held a shadow hearing inviting partisan environmentalists to 

talk to each other, including a former employee of the Oklahoma 

Attorney General’s Office under Pruitt’s predecessor, who was sued 

and settled out of court for extreme workplace harassment. Great 

witness. Yet, even with all the unnecessary questions at the Democrat shadow hearing, Pruitt continued to talk with Ranking Member Carper by phone on Monday for 30 minutes, answering even 

more questions. I know about this phone call, and no questions 

were asked, none. 

Ranking Member Carper asked the same recusal questions posed 

at the January 18th nomination hearing, even though he has a letter from the EPA Career Ethics employee stating, ‘‘Pruitt has satisfied all ethics requirements and has entered into the same recusal 

agreement as former Administrator Lisa Jackson.’’ 

The other side just happens not to like the answer. 

Now, I am going to ask unanimous consent that we have a letter 

entered into the record after my remarks. 

Ranking Member Carper complained that Pruitt’s description of 

the Illinois River agreement was wrong. Pruitt has negotiated the 

first enforceable limit on phosphorous in the Illinois River. That is 

simply a fact. 

He complained about Pruitt’s answers on whether EPA can control mercury from power plants, alleging Pruitt opposes it simply 

4 

because he was on the winning side of the Michigan v. EPA legislation, where the Supreme Court found EPA didn’t bother to consider 

the costs of EPA’s own rules, contrary to law. 

Finally, he complained about the answers to only 9 questions out 

of 1,078 questions where Pruitt had to refer to the process under 

Oklahoma’s Open Records Act to get a comprehensive response to 

the questions. Here are some examples of the Democrat member’s 

questions, and you can decide whether or not referral to the Open 

Records Act was appropriate. 

Senator Cardin, in his 29th question, Senator Cardin, who is not 

here today but a member of this Committee, he said, ‘‘Please provide all communications you have had with representatives of agricultural and other companies regarding water quality litigation between Arkansas and Oklahoma.’’ 

Senator Carper’s 119th question: ‘‘For each listed matter in the 

State of Oklahoma has been a litigant or petitioner against the 

EPA, please provide any and all documents, including any and all 

written electronic correspondence, audio tapes, electronic records, 

video tapes, photographs, telephone messages, voicemails, e-mails, 

facsimiles, daily agendas, and calendars information about meetings and/or discussions, whether in person or over the phone, agendas, minutes, and a list of participants for those meetings and/or 

discussions, and transcripts and notes of any such meetings or discussions from the date on which your office first began to prepare 

the litigation at hand to the date of the letter between you or other 

employees in your office and each representative of each non-governmental entity with whom you or your office communicated 

about the litigation.’’ That is all in one question. They are all part 

of the 1,078 questions. 

Senator Markey’s 61st question: ‘‘For each year since 1995,’’ that 

is 22 years of records, ‘‘please provide information regarding the 

State of Oklahoma’s environmental enforcement efforts, specifically 

descriptions of each environmental enforcement action, including 

investigations and enforcement proceedings initiated by the AGs,’’ 

that is Attorney General’s office, ‘‘including the date of the action 

it was initiated, the name of the subject of the action and the nature of the action and environmental violation that led thereto, the 

annual budget and the number of employees, and’’—this is still 

Senator Markey’s 61st question—‘‘describe each environmental enforcement action, including investigations and enforcement procedures that was closed, including a description of the resolution of 

the matter, whether a fine or penalty was levied and, if so, the 

amount of such fine or penalty, whether non-monetary remedies 

were required, and if so, what, and whether criminal prosecution 

was initiated in the matter, and if so, what the resolution to the 

prosecution was.’’ That is the end of that question. 

Senator Whitehouse’s 84th and 85th questions: ‘‘Please list all 

matters you and your office have had with the U.S. Department of 

Interior or the EPA since you became Attorney General of Oklahoma. For the purpose of this and the following question’s matters 

refer to lawsuits, including lawsuits in which your office filed a 

friend of the court brief, enforcement actions, investigations, 

rulemakings, and any other matter which included adjudication between parties.’’ 

5 

Let me repeat that Scott Pruitt has answered 1,000 more questions than any other nominee in the last three presidential administrations, and Scott Pruitt went through four rounds of questions. 

That is more rounds of questions than anyone has had to be subjected to in the history of this Committee. So it is time, I think, 

that we move on and get him voted out, and he is going to make 

a great Administrator of the EPA and a refreshing change. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe, was there something you 

wanted to introduce to the record? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes. I mentioned that earlier at this point 

in the record, and that is the letter I referred to. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Here it is. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

6 


26822.001
7 


26822.002
8 


26822.003
9 


26822.004
10 


26822.005
11 


26822.006
12 


26822.007
13 


26822.008
14 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Capito. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to 

strongly support Scott Pruitt’s nomination to be the EPA Administrator. We need a functioning Environmental Protection Agency, 

and Americans deserve the change at the EPA that they voted for 

this fall. 

The American people are being denied this because of the Democrats’ decision to boycott today’s Committee business meeting. As 

has been mentioned, Scott Pruitt has been through a very thorough—and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that—incredibly thorough 

process. The gentleman from Oklahoma, I got exhausted just listening to the questions, but the Attorney General has answered 

over 1,200 questions by the time you add the written questions and 

the questions that were offered during the Committee hearing. No 

recent nominee for the EPA Administration has ever answered 

more questions, as we have heard. 

And I understand that my Democrat colleagues may not agree 

with Attorney General Pruitt’s answers or with his philosophy, but 

disagreement with a nominee’s position cannot justify a decision to 

boycott a scheduled Committee vote. Democrats should, instead, 

give the nominee the same consideration that has been given to the 

other nominees from both parties. 

As we heard, Carol Browner had a hearing January 11th and 

was confirmed on the 21st of January. Christy Todd Whitman, in 

2001, had her hearing on the 17th of January, was confirmed on 

the 30th. And in 2009 Lisa Jackson had a hearing on January 14th 

and was confirmed on January 22nd, 2 days after the President’s 

swearing in. 

Scott Pruitt’s hearing was 2 weeks ago. He has been very visible 

and very open to questions. So today here we are, February 1st, 

later than the date of confirmation for his recent predecessors, and 

his nomination is continuing to avoid action in this Committee. 

And the Democrats are just wasting time with stunts like today’s 

boycott. I found a quote that I had heard, and I kept looking it up, 

trying to figure out who to attribute it to, but 80 percent of life is 

showing up. They are living on 20 percent of life right now. They 

are not even showing up. If a student doesn’t show up, they flunk 

the class. If a worker doesn’t show up, they get fired from their 

jobs. 

So our constituents elected us to do our job, and that includes 

coming to Committee hearings and voicing our opinions. They have 

had more than ample opportunity to hear from Attorney General 

Pruitt. Now is the time for this Committee to vote. Senators can 

vote yes or they can vote no; they can express their opinion. But 

failing to show up does not serve our constituents. 

Now, I agree with Senator Sanders, who is a member of this 

Committee, and we probably don’t agree on a whole lot of other 

things, but he said, in 2013, ‘‘When people have honest difference 

of opinion, we debate it.’’ That is what Congress is made to do. But 

when the goal is simply obstructionism, I would draw this concluVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Sep 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26822.TXT SONYA
15 

sion: We are not responding to the needs of the American people 

if there is not an EPA Administrator. 

So if the Democrats were present for this vote, we could debate 

our honest differences. I would point out, as I do every time, that 

there are tens of thousands of coal mining jobs in my State that 

have been lost in large part to EPA regulations. We could discuss 

the hardships of the misguided rules that have caused for farmers 

or natural gas workers or manufacturers. We could also talk about 

the great work that the EPA does to bring about clean air and 

clean water. And we could decide then if Scott Pruitt should be the 

next Administrator. 

I am very disappointed we are not going to have a two-sided debate here. He has a distinguished record of enforcing our environmental laws as they are written and working to protect clean air 

and clean water without unduly costing jobs and economic growth. 

I again commend the Chairman for the thorough confirmation 

process that he has conducted, and I look forward to voting in favor 

of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be our next EPA Administrator. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It truly is disappointing that members of our Committee are unable to come together to vote on the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt 

for the position of Administrator of the EPA. 

I understand that my friends on the other side of the aisle are 

not happy with the Trump administration and are doing everything 

possible to delay voting on many of his cabinet nominees. However, 

as then-Chairwoman Boxer, in 2007, stated, ‘‘Elections have consequences.’’ 

The truth is that no one has been fairer or more patient than 

Chairman Barrasso. I urge my Democrat colleagues of the Committee to quit stalling a vote on the nomination. Attorney General 

Pruitt has been through a grueling nomination process and has 

done everything that has been asked of him. This includes answering more questions, as we have heard, than incoming nominees for 

the same position in the Obama, Bush, and Clinton administrations. 

Many of my Democratic friends will say he has not sufficiently 

answered many of their questions. I would like to point out there 

is a stark difference between not having a question answered and 

receiving an answer that you do not like or can’t agree with. I 

would also add many of the 1,078 questions for the record, which 

he answered in a timely fashion, were essentially the same questions he was asked at his nearly 6-hour-long hearing 2 weeks ago. 

It is unreasonable for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 

to expect a different answer to the same question. 

Here are the answers that matter: 

16 

Attorney General Pruitt has agreed to be transparent in EPA’s 

rulemaking process, something that the Obama administration refused to do. 

He has agreed to bring stakeholders and the private sector to the 

table when developing rules, assuring that everyone’s voice will be 

heard. 

He has promised to be forthright with Congress and get us answers in a timely fashion whenever we have questions or concerns, 

something former Administrator McCarthy was unable to do while 

running the EPA. 

And last, he has promised to follow the rule of law, ensuring that 

the EPA will go back to its core mission, protecting the environment by carrying out the laws developed by Congress. This will ensure that the EPA will not become a political arm of the Trump administration. 

It is time for us to put aside partisan squabbles and vote on this 

very qualified and respected candidate to lead the EPA. Now is the 

time to roll up our sleeves and get to work. Attorney General Pruitt’s responses to the questions put before him during the confirmation hearing earned the opportunity to be considered by the full 

Senate, and that begins with this Committee voting on his nomination. 

I know some of my colleagues aren’t happy with who is in the 

White House, but President Trump is not only President for Republicans; he is the President of all American citizens, and deserves to 

have the people in place to help him do the job he was elected to 

do. 

In 2009 the full Senate approved seven of President Obama’s 

cabinet nominees his first day in office. It is almost 2 weeks, and 

this chamber hasn’t voted on seven of President Trump’s nominees. 

Republicans have the votes necessary to confirm many of the 

Trump administration’s nominees, and that worries the Democrats, 

who have fundamental differences with the new Administration. 

I can honestly say I understand why Democrats are upset. I was 

upset when President Obama was forcing rules and regulations 

down the throat of Congress. But I say to my Democrat friends, 

being in the minority in the Senate, House, and losing the White 

House does not mean your job is done. You have an incredible opportunity as an EPW member to keep the new Administration in 

check, to ensure Attorney General Pruitt keeps his word, is transparent and available to stakeholders and Congress. We need to 

work together rather than obstructing the will of the American people. 

Though it is not happening today, I am pleased to support Attorney General Pruitt’s nomination in this Committee and allow our 

colleagues a vote on the Senate floor. Attorney General Pruitt is a 

strong candidate, and I look forward to working with him as the 

EPA Administrator. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Wicker. 

17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, support Scott Pruitt, and let me just say I think objective 

observers who watched his testimony would have to agree that it 

was an impressive display of knowledge and patience. Attorney 

General Pruitt demonstrated that he is intelligent, articulate, 

thoughtful, patient, and knowledgeable. And I think because of 

that he will eventually be confirmed. 

You know, we are going to get through this, and the people on 

the other side of the dais are friends of mine. I am disappointed 

in them today. And frankly, I was disappointed in their conduct 

during the hearing, taking a complicated issue and asking the witness to answer yes or no, yes or no, when we all know that those 

issues didn’t call for a yes or no answer; putting up a poster of 

campaign contributors to the Republican Attorneys General Association and somehow suggesting that that impeached the ability of 

Attorney General Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

It was silly. It was beneath them. And again, we will get past 

this. But it was a disappointment to me, as friends of my colleagues on the other side. 

This action today by the Democratic members of this Committee 

is not about the qualifications of Attorney General Pruitt to be 

head of the EPA. It is simply about their disappointment with the 

results of the November election, pure and simple. And I would say 

to my colleagues, you are making yourselves look bad. And there 

were other statements that I was hearing on television last night, 

after the President made his Supreme Court nomination. 

We are ultimately going to be judged in the court of public opinion, and I think the American people are ready to put the election, 

the close election that we had in November, behind us, accept the 

results, and move forward to govern this nation. I am proud of this 

nominee. I am pleased that the President has put him forward. I 

am disappointed in my Democratic colleagues. But this nominee 

will be confirmed and we will move on. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Wicker. 

Senator Fischer, thank you so much for deferring your time to 

Senator Ernst, who has an unavoidable scheduling conflict. 

Senator Ernst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Senator Fischer, very much. 

I would like to echo the same sentiments of many of my colleagues that are here today, and I would like to state for the record 

that this Committee and all Republicans in the Senate are committed to a fair and full confirmation process, and I know Chairman Barrasso has worked really hard to make sure that that is the 

case for Mr. Pruitt. 

Vetting nominees is an important role, and one that I take seriously, as do my colleagues. But there comes a point when vetting 

18 

has been turned into obstruction, and that is what we are witnessing here today. 

Mr. Pruitt has answered more than 1,200 questions from this 

Committee. Twelve hundred questions. That is over 1,000 more answers than the incoming nominees for EPA Administrator from the 

last four administrations. 

Lisa Jackson, nominated by President Obama to be EPA Administrator at the start of his presidency, and viewed as a very controversial pick by many on this Committee, was asked 202 questions; 202 questions compared to 1,200. 

So I would ask my colleagues on the other side what is the true 

purpose of their witch hunt. Because if the answer is to get more 

clarity on Mr. Pruitt’s policy views or positions, Chairman Barrasso 

has given you an unprecedented amount of time and opportunity 

to get those answers, surpassing Committee standards set in 2003, 

2005, 2009, and 2013. In fact, some of you even publicly acknowledge that you were pleased with how this Committee conducted the 

confirmation hearing. 

So I would remind my Democratic colleagues of their words in 

2013, back when this Committee was considering Gina McCarthy 

and roles were reversed. Take, for example, Senator Cardin, who 

said, ‘‘It has nothing to do with information not made available. It 

has everything to do with obstructionism.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to wrap up my comments here, but 

I would leave my colleagues on the other side with one final 

thought. Will they take the blame for an EPA that is not fully operational, heaven forbid, even if we have an environmental crisis? 

When people have honest differences of opinion, we debate it. 

But when the goal is simply obstructionism, I would draw this conclusion: ‘‘We are not responding to the needs of the American people if there is not an EPA Administrator.’’ And folks, those are not 

my words, those are the words that came from Senator Bernie 

Sanders from 2013. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Ernst. 

Senator Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank you for 

your thorough hearing process that we had with Attorney General 

Pruitt. As you have said, we had unlimited rounds. Any number of 

questions were asked during the public hearing. We had given this 

man 1,200 questions to respond to, and he has. So I thank you for 

really going above and beyond what I have seen happen not just 

in this Committee, but any other committee here in the U.S. Senate, no matter if it is chaired by Republican or Democrat. So thank 

you, Senator Barrasso. 

I would also like to thank Attorney General Pruitt. Throughout 

the hearing, if you were able to watch it, he treated this Committee 

and he treated this process with the utmost respect. He had a very 

respectful demeanor. He answered every question, I believe, thoroughly; and if he was unable to answer at the time, he provided 

the information later. 

19 

I know Oklahoma can be proud of the gentleman that we had before us. Not only was he respectful, but he was also articulate, and 

he spoke with a calmness and a surety when he gave us his answers. It was obvious how intelligent he is. It was obvious that he 

is well qualified for this position because of his not only vast experience, but his vast knowledge on many of these issues. 

It is disappointing that our Democrat colleagues are not here 

today doing their job, and that job is to be able to debate with us, 

to be able to discuss so that we can continue this open, transparent, and accountable process that every Senate Committee hearing should be. That is what it should be, that we continue to do 

that. But instead we are seeing filibustering now at the Committee 

level. 

You know, I have had many, many disagreements with the previous Administrator, but we always showed a mutual respect for 

each other. And when Administrator McCarthy came before this 

Committee, we would have frank conversations, we would have 

open conversations, and we did it in full view of the public so that 

every citizen had the opportunity to see what our discussions were. 

I thank our former Administrator for the respect that she showed 

this Committee. I thank her for the civility that all members of this 

Committee showed to her. And it is more than disappointing that 

we are not able to see that today. 

I don’t believe that Americans want to see this from their representatives. Americans want all of us to be able to have respectful 

conversations and do so in a manner that promotes the values of 

this country, and that is that we respect each other, we continue 

to have dialogue, and we continue to work for the people of this 

country. So I hope that our colleagues on the other side, our Democrat colleagues, will come to the Committee so that we can show 

that respect for each other and the respect for the process and the 

respect for the U.S. Senate and the Government that we have in 

this country. And I hope that they will come before us so that we 

can get to work, so that they can get to work, because that is what 

the American people expect us to do. They expect us to do our jobs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Moran. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KANSAS 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Thanks 

for calling this meeting. I am sorry for the circumstances we find 

ourselves in. I would just like to make three points. 

First of all, I would like to compliment you and the way that you 

have conducted this process. I don’t see how anyone could reach a 

conclusion that it has been anything but fair, appropriate, the way 

that a Senate committee should be conducted. 

Second, I would like to just comment briefly on the quality of the 

nominee. As a Kansan from a neighboring State, we hold people 

from the Midwest in high regard, and I found the Attorney General 

to fit the qualifications of an individual that I would find great 

comfort in. And his testimony here showed significant knowledge, 

information, experience, with also a practical side of how environVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:06 Sep 25, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\26822.TXT SONYA
20 

mental regulations have huge consequences upon the opportunities 

that Americans have. How do we keep the American dream alive 

at the same time of keeping the environment clean and desirable? 

Many of us choose to live in the Midwest. I choose to live in Kansas for a number of reasons, but one is because the sunsets, the 

sky, the water. It is a beautiful place, and we all want it to be that 

way. We also know that we also need economic activity. We want 

our kids to have a chance to be raised on a farm, but also to become farmers. We want the opportunities to be available to all, and 

so we have to find the right balance, and I found the Attorney General’s testimony very satisfactory in that regard. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, perhaps most importantly to me today, is 

one more example of the dysfunction of the U.S. Senate by the actions taken by our colleagues on this Committee. I have said this 

numerous times, mostly to Kansans. I don’t think I have ever said 

it in public here, but I was elected to the U.S. Senate now 6 years 

ago, in 2010. There is absolutely nothing in my background that 

would suggest I would grow up to be a member of the U.S. Senate; 

nothing in my family, no particular qualifications other than I am 

an American citizen. 

And as some of you have heard me say, when I arrived at the 

U.S. Senate, I was welcomed to the Senate by the then-Majority 

Leader Harry Reid. And Senator Reid was very kind to me, welcomed me to the Senate. We were standing on the Senate floor, and 

he asked me how I liked being here, and I indicated to him how 

honored I was by Kansans giving me the chance to try to make a 

difference on their behalf. 

But I said, you know, Leader, sir, it doesn’t seem to me like we 

are going to do anything. And Senator Reid’s reply to me was, oh, 

Jerry, you just need to understand we are not going to do anything. 

And that was very disappointing, discouraging to me, again, from 

a sense—I don’t mean this in any kind of personal accomplishment 

way, but to become a Member of the U.S. Senate by the grace of 

God, kindness of Kansans, only to discover that the plan was to do 

nothing. 

So for much of my time in the U.S. Senate I have been working 

on behalf of every Senator, Republican, Democrat, all 100 of us, to 

have the sense that we have jobs to do and work to be done, and 

we all ought to have a chance to advocate on behalf of our constituents. 

I come from Kansas, and in many ways we may have different 

points of view than people who come from other places in the country. This country is a diverse place. The U.S. Senate is a place in 

which that diversity is overcome. It is a place in which the diversity of this country should be overcome. And it takes goodwill and 

common sense; a desire to accommodate other people’s points of 

view; an understanding that someone may disagree with you, but 

it doesn’t make them evil; an understanding that someone may disagree with you, but maybe you can learn something from that disagreement and modify your own position. But none of that can happen at the U.S. Senate, and today the example is this Committee 

doesn’t function. So it is discouraging to see, once again, that we 

are in the mode of we are not going to do anything. 

21 

I don’t expect to win every battle, and I recognize that often my 

points of view, coming from where I come and the philosophy that 

I hold, is a minority point of view. But I certainly have the responsibility to advocate and hope that someday our point of view may 

be something that becomes a majority point of view. I don’t expect 

success today, but I expect the opportunity to pursue success in the 

future. 

And if we can’t even meet together, if we can’t even have the debate, the discussion, ultimately votes taken, majority rules, then 

we never have the chance to convince each other that we are wrong 

or we are right, and we are missing something important to the 

legislative process. So it is just one more disappointment in a circumstance that we ought not face. 

Finally, I would say I have tried to set the expectations that so 

maybe after the next election, if we can just get through an election, maybe we can set aside the differences and then come together and govern. Maybe there is something that has to happen. 

Early in my time in politics people would say, well, we can’t do it 

right now, there is an election coming around the corner. Usually 

that was a month or a few weeks out. Then over time it has become, well, there is an election this year; and now there is an election this cycle. We can’t continue to use an election as the excuse 

for inability to do anything. 

And today we don’t even have that as an excuse; the election is 

behind us. We have a new President to serve in office for the next 

4 years, and we ought not stand for the inability for us to govern, 

to reach conclusions, make decisions based on the fact that this is 

politics. We have become, too often, governing by tantrum now, 

governing by sound bite, governing by press conference, and the 

governing needs to take place among Members of the U.S. Senate, 

and it can start right here with the Committee on EPW. 

Mr. Chairman, again I thank you for the way you have conducted the hearing. I express my gratitude for a nominee who is 

willing to put himself and his family through the process of trying 

to serve his country. And I would ask all my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats, to find ways for us to solve problems by 

working together. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

Senator Rounds, thank you for your patience in deferring to Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Sullivan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

I, too, want to express my appreciation for how you have run this 

hearing. I think it was probably the most thorough hearing for an 

EPA Administrator probably in U.S. history. It was done in a very 

respectful manner, and all the members, as you indicated, Democrats and Republicans, very much appreciated it. 

You know, sometimes in these hearings you can’t make the hearing because you are out at another hearing, but just for the record, 

22 

right before this hearing I was out in the hallway, and the vast 

majority of our colleagues were literally meandering in the hallway 

right in front of the hearing room. So I invited them to come in, 

and unfortunately, they politely declined. So it is not like they are 

busy. Literally kind of circling the hallway. A little embarrassing 

there. 

You know, Mr. Chairman, we have differences of opinion in this 

Committee. That is often a good thing. We debate them; we share 

ideas. We give the voters the very best we have, and then we let 

them make their own decisions, and on election day that is what 

happened. The people chose President Trump over Secretary of 

State Hillary Clinton. And when they did that, they did so knowing 

that he would appoint a new cabinet. And they voted for action, 

and they voted for a smooth transition, and they expected us in 

these committees to give us an open and fair and thorough nominating process, confirmation process for the members of the cabinet, and that is what you did, and that is what we all did. 

And I think as the hearing revealed, Attorney General Pruitt is 

highly qualified for the EPA Administrator job. The EPA needs a 

serious course correction after the lawless leadership of Gina 

McCarthy, and Mr. Pruitt has shown that he has the commitment, 

the intellect, the experience to lead this change, and I think that 

is going to be critical for America. It is certainly going to be critical 

for my State of Alaska. 

So, Mr. Chairman, what is going on here? As I noted at the outset, my colleagues are out literally meandering in the hallway. This 

is simply a senatorial temper tantrum. A senatorial temper tantrum. And as all the parents here know, temper tantrums waste 

a lot of energy, but they don’t accomplish anything. The American 

people deserve better, and I ask my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle to come back to the Committee. Let’s get to work. 

And here is the important thing that I think it is really important to recognize. Sometimes this Committee is viewed as a very 

partisan Committee. But this is a Committee that actually gets 

things done. And with the new head of the EPA we can do that in 

a bipartisan way. I am glad to see the former Chairman is here. 

My first 2 years in the Senate, this Committee was the most active 

Committee—TSCA, the highway bill, the WRDA bill, with Republicans and a Democrat in the White House, and we still got those 

things passed. So I would ask my colleagues to cease the temper 

tantrum. Let’s get back to work, because it is important for the 

American people and that is what they want. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

Senator Rounds. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROUNDS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think a lot of 

things have already been said today that needed to be said by 

members of our party, the party which is actually showing up for 

this particular Committee hearing. 

I am going to be brief, but it comes to mind that a gentleman 

that led South Dakota, former Governor by the name of George 

23 

Mickelson, used to say that things get done by people that show 

up. He didn’t say things get done by people that don’t show up or 

that are protesting. 

The reality is that our friends on the other side of the aisle—and 

we know them personally, they are good people—they have decided 

that this is a protest, and it is a protest because they are not going 

to receive a nominee that they wanted. When they lost the election, 

it was hard on them, and they are still feeling that pain, and because of that their protest here by not showing up slows down the 

work of the Senate. It won’t stop the work of the Senate, but it 

does show one of the reasons why it is so hard to get lots of different things done that I think the American people really wanted 

to see get done. 

You know, Scott Pruitt is the Attorney General. He comes in 

with the qualifications clearly in a position to make changes within 

the Environmental Protection Agency that many of us wanted to 

see. He believes in sound science. He is one of the guys that understands that regulations really do impact the day to day lives of 

American citizens. He understands that State and local units of 

government should have a say in how those regulations are established. 

EPA, when it works correctly, works in a Federalist role, one in 

which they cooperate and coordinate with State and local units of 

government. I thought he would add value at the EPA, and I think 

in the future he will. Simply delaying the change in leadership at 

the Environmental Protection Agency does not help our country. I 

think for our friends on the other side of the aisle, when we were 

growing up, our mom and our dad used to tell us that it isn’t one 

of those things that is appropriate to simply say, if I am mad at 

the game that is chosen, I will take my ball and go home, and yet 

that is kind of what we are seeing here. And it will change, but 

in the meantime, we have to work our way through this. 

I think we have to be the adults in the room. We have to act like 

adults in the room. I think we will follow the rules, but we will 

eventually approve Mr. Pruitt as the next Administrator for the 

Environmental Protection Agency. But in the meantime it has 

slowed down the process within the U.S. Senate, a lot of things in 

which most Republicans and Democrats can agree on. Time on the 

floor of the Senate is extremely valuable, and it is one that I think 

Republicans and Democrats both agree that that time, when it is 

as valuable as what it is, can’t be wasted. 

Unfortunately, what we are seeing from our colleagues is every 

opportunity that they can to slow down the work in the U.S. Senate continues. They have slowed down, they have declined in many 

cases to give time back even when they are done with the debate, 

and this is just one more glaring example of a dysfunction within 

this body that could really work better than what it does today. 

So I think rather than simply beating them up over this time 

and time again, we should simply remind them that I think we all 

know that there is a better way to get this stuff done, and simply 

not showing up for a Committee hearing is probably one of the 

more childish things and one of the more childish behaviors when 

it comes to protesting. 

24 

I think the value here could have been, if they were on the other 

side of the aisle and simply pointed out their point of view, and if 

they disagreed or if they had reasons why Mr. Pruitt should not 

be identified as the next Administrator, to be able to come in and 

voice those and to lay out their arguments appropriately in opposition to our arguments in favor of him would have been a healthy 

discussion that would have been an example to young people across 

this country about the way that our Government should work, and 

that open and public debate and discourse, that is a healthy part 

of this process. But simply not showing up because you lost an election is probably not the most appropriate way to set an example 

for the next generation. 

So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I would acknowledge the way in 

which you have handled this series of Committee hearings, it has 

been fair. Mr. Pruitt has answered over 1,000 more questions than 

anybody else applying for this job has in the past. And it simply 

is clear that our friends on the other side of the aisle have chosen 

what I believe to be the wrong way to protest the loss of an election, and they have provided additional reasons to point out the 

dysfunction that sometimes occurs in what should be a very deliberative body in the U.S. Senate. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for what you have done to 

try to move this process forward. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds. 

I thank all the members for being here. 

I want to just close with stating that not having a vote on this 

nominee today, not organizing this important Committee is a 

shame. I believe no one is served, no environmental goal is 

achieved by the Democrats acting in this obstructionist way. 

I want to quote one of my colleagues from Oregon, on the other 

side of the aisle, when he stated, in May 2013, ‘‘What we have 

today is an embarrassing dereliction of public responsibility.’’ He 

said, ‘‘And the word embarrassing doesn’t capture the grave harm 

that is coming from members of this body deciding to abuse the advice and consent obligation that this body has, this Senate has 

under our Constitution.’’ 

To the members of this Committee, I tell you I pledge to move 

the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency as expeditiously as 

possible. 

This Committee is in recess subject to the call of the Chair. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m. the Committee was recessed, subject 

to the call of the Chair.] 

[Resuming Thursday, February 2, 2017] 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:45 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, 

Fischer, Sessions, Moran, Rounds, Ernst, and Sullivan. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Committee is called to order. 

We are reconvening our business meeting to consider the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be EPA Administrator, 

the Committee funding resolution, and the Committee rules. 

25 

Yesterday, the minority members of the Committee chose to boycott this business meeting. It is disappointing that they chose that 

course of action, but we will not allow it to obstruct. 

As I stated yesterday, this Committee has conducted an extremely thorough and fair process of reviewing Attorney General 

Pruitt’s nomination. That includes a hearing of unprecedented 

length, number of questions, and timely responses from the nominee. It is unprecedented for the minority to delay an EPA Administrator for an incoming President to this extent. 

We had an election last November, the people spoke, and now it 

is time to set up a functioning Government. That includes a functioning EPA. To do that, this Committee has to do its work. 

So at this time I ask for a motion to suspend Rules 2(a), 4, and 

8 of the Rules of the Environment and Public Works Committee for 

the duration of this business meeting. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I so move. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is there a second? 

Senator CAPITO. Second. 

Senator BARRASSO. All those in favor, please say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator BARRASSO. All opposed, say nay. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator BARRASSO. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, 

and Rules 2(a), 4, and 8 of the Rules of the Committee of the Environment and Public Works are suspended for the duration of this 

business meeting. 

At this time, I would like to call up Presidential Nomination 44, 

Scott Pruitt, of Oklahoma, to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Could I have a motion to approve and report the nomination favorably to the Senate? 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, I so move. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is there a second? 

Senator WICKER. Second. 

Senator BARRASSO. On this matter I ask for a recorded vote. The 

Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker. 

Mr. Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin. 

Mr. Carper. 

Mrs. Duckworth. 

Mrs. Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand. 

Ms. Harris. 

Mr. Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey. 

Mr. Merkley. 

26 

Mr. Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders. 

Mr. Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse. 

Mr. Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The Clerk will report. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11. 

Senator BARRASSO. The nomination of Attorney General Scott 

Pruitt to be EPA Administrator is approved and reported. 

Next, I would like to call up the Committee funding resolution, 

which funds the Committee from March 1st of this year through 

February 28th of 2019 in three financial periods reflecting the 

funding levels the Rules Committee assigned to the Committee. 

Do any Senators seek recognition to speak about this resolution? 

If not, could I have a motion to approve and report the resolution 

to the Senate? 

Senator INHOFE. I so move. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is there a second? 

Senator ROUNDS. Second. 

Senator BARRASSO. All those in favor, please say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Opposed, nay. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator BARRASSO. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it, 

and the Committee funding resolution is approved and reported. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

27 


26822.009
28 


26822.010
29 


26822.011
30 


26822.012
31 


26822.013
32 

Senator BARRASSO. Next I would like to consider the Committee 

rules. Do any Senators seek recognition to speak about the Committee Rules? 

If not, could I have a motion to adopt the Committee rules for 

the 115th Congress? 

Senator INHOFE. I so move. 

Senator BARRASSO. Is there a second? 

Senator WICKER. Second. 

Senator BARRASSO. All those in favor, please say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Opposed, nay. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator BARRASSO. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. 

The Committee rules are adopted. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

33 


26822.014
34 


26822.015
35 


26822.016
36 


26822.017
37 


26822.018
38 


26822.019
39 


26822.020
40 


26822.021
41 

Senator BARRASSO. Let me make clear to everyone what just happened. Yesterday, the minority members of the Committee chose to 

boycott our business meeting because they do not support the nomination of Scott Pruitt. As we pointed out yesterday, elections have 

consequences, and a new President is entitled to put in place people who will advance his agenda, the agenda that the people voted 

for when they elected him President. 

Today we suspended several of the rules of the EPW Committee 

for this business meeting only. We took this extraordinary step because the minority members of the Committee took the extraordinary step of boycotting the business meeting to approve an EPA 

Administrator for an incoming Administration. 

We have been in consultation with the Senate Parliamentarian, 

and she has informed us that the procedure that we have followed 

today is proper under the Senate rules, and no point of order will 

lie against the Pruitt nomination. The minority has put us in this 

uncharted waters. Never before in the history of the EPA has a 

new President’s incoming Administration’s nominee been boycotted. 

The last three nominees for new incoming Administrations were all 

confirmed by the end of January. 

Yesterday, February 1st, the minority blocked even having a vote 

in Committee of the nominee. Attorney General Pruitt sat through 

the longest EPA nomination hearing in history and answered the 

most questions. The complaints about Attorney General Pruitt’s answers to questions is simply a smoke screen. 

Let me be clear. The leadership of the minority chose to do a 

blanket boycott of many of the President’s nominees in committees 

across the Senate, regardless of their merit. The minority wants 

political theater. The nation needs a new EPA Administrator. At 

the end of this meeting, the Committee rules will be back in full 

effect. I expect to conduct all further business of this Committee 

under those rules and hope that from this point forward we will be 

able to work together in a bipartisan manner. 

Before we adjourn, it is important to note that in 2009 thenChairman Boxer reported legislation from this Committee without 

meeting the quorum requirements under the Committee rules. 

With regard to boycott comparisons with Gina McCarthy’s nomination, the EPW Republicans were not stopping President Obama 

from setting up his Government. Gina McCarthy was a second 

term nominee. President Obama’s political appointees, including 

Gina McCarthy, were already at EPA advancing President Obama’s 

agenda. 

This concludes our business meeting. I ask for unanimous consent for staff to make any technical corrections to any of today’s 

measures. Without objection. 

This business meeting is concluded. The Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:52 a.m. the meeting was adjourned.] 

Æ