Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my friend and mentor, a great Illinoisan, Senator Durbin for being here today. I wouldn't be here without his guidance and friendship over the years.

It is truly an honor to stand at this desk, which was once held by another great Illinoisan by the name of Barack Obama, delivering my maiden speech from the floor of the U.S. Senate to the people of Illinois, the same State that has been represented in Washington by other impressive leaders like Paul Simon and Abraham Lincoln. And it is an honor to address the people of the United States of America, the greatest Nation in the world.

Though we have occasionally made choices as a society that do not reflect our best selves, we are today the greatest Nation on Earth because of the founding ideals that have anchored our Nation and because of the shared values that have guided the development and strength of our economy and our people--values like treating each other equally, showing strength and resilience in the face of hardship, and embracing the diversity that makes us who we are. They are shared values that have helped us to strive toward that more perfect Union the Constitution's Framers envisioned, a more perfect Union that offers everyone a chance to reach his or her potential, a more perfect Union that will not give up on its people, and a more perfect Union whose people don't give up on themselves either.

We face a great deal of challenges and threats, threats I know well, but we cannot allow today's hardships to change who we are as a people, to tear down the pillars that make this Nation great. Falling victim to fear and demagoguery will only ensure a weaker America for our children, and that is simply not the future I want for my Abigail.

When we, as a society, think about the future we want for all of our children, I think it is important for us to remember how we got here. Our Nation wasn't founded as the dominant global economic and military force that it is today. We were not founded as the leader of the free world; our people built that. Americans understood that when we invest in ourselves, the fabric that holds our country together only grows stronger. A scrappy gang of patriots in the American Revolution--my own family included--won us our liberty, which we used to push for greater civil and human rights and to make investments in agricultural and educational systems that sparked our economy, allowing us to strengthen our military into the greatest fighting force the world has ever seen.

Success, however, was never guaranteed. From our founding, the United States of America was forged through fierce debates and stark divisions. Slavery led to bloodshed across the country, including in the Senate Chamber, and culminated in brothers killing brothers during our Civil War. Yet our Union made it through our greatest challenges and emerged even stronger. We emerged a more perfect Union.

Our strength has been on display outside of our military as well: When heroes like Frederick Douglass and Harriet Tubman risked everything to help bring an end to slavery; when Martin Luther King, Jr., had a dream; when the children of the Little Rock Nine braved harassment and abuse to bring an end to segregated schools and ensure educational opportunity for all; and when the backbreaking work of Asian and American laborers united our Nation from sea to shining sea with the completion of the transcontinental railroad.

America catalyzed the industrial revolution for the globe. We helped rescue the global community from fascism during World War II. We promoted civil and human rights around the globe. We explored space, launched the internet revolution, helped feed the world, built a world- class infrastructure network, developed a gold standard education system, and grew the strongest economy ever seen.

We were able to win World War II not because of the brave troops in our Armed Forces alone but also because our Nation's manufacturers and steel mills were able to produce the tanks and planes and firearms and other tools we needed to defeat the Nazis. We were able to build those weapons, launch the internet revolution, and send a man to the Moon only because we had a well-educated workforce made of people from all around the globe, all of whom had an opportunity to attend world-class colleges and universities right here in the United States, universities we spent generations strengthening.

Our economy was able to grow to its current strength not only because of that well-educated workforce and those who came from distant lands but also all who came and stayed to contribute to our society. It was also able to grow because we had invested heavily in infrastructure and built an interstate system and air and rail networks that enabled our farmers, ranchers, and

other producers to get their goods to market inside and outside our country's borders.

We were able to feed the world not only because of our strong agricultural sector and infrastructure alone but also because of the scientific advances supported by those educational institutions that helped increase farm production and yields.

Throughout our history, we pushed to expand human and civil rights from the abolitionists to the suffragettes, learning from people like the Tuskegee Airmen, the Selma marchers, and the LGBTQ leaders today that being inclusive and enabling people to reach their full potential only strengthens the American core. We did all of these things as a result of our shared values, and we have reaped their rewards for generations.

We have seen our Nation's strength in our prouder moments, as when America chose to go to the Moon--not because it was easy but, in President Kennedy's words, because it was hard.

We have seen our strength in tragedy, reuniting under a common cause in the rubble of the Pentagon and Ground Zero on 9/11.

We might get knocked down, but the America that I know, the America that I fought for and love, does not give up. That is not a Democratic principle or a Republican principle; it is simply the American way.

America's greatness has never depended on the strength of any individual person, but on all of us working together toward a common goal. When we have failed to stay true to our core values, when we deny another person our Nation's promise of opportunity, our Nation's strength suffers. When a child can't access the tools to succeed in school, when a woman can't afford basic healthcare, when refugees fleeing terror see the door slammed shut in their face, when we deny civil rights on the basis of skin color or sexual orientation or religion, and when a working family can't put food on the table, our whole Nation suffers. At the end of the day, America's greatness depends on each of us remaining true to the common values of our Nation.

But we have lost sight of those values. The Nation that built an interstate highway system, that was a refuge for immigrants who became the foundation of our economy, this Nation that pushed humanity to new heights, first with planes and helicopters and then into space, that same Nation seems to have forgotten how to invest in itself.

Our country that ushered in the era of aviation is now home to aging airports that struggle to compete with their global competitors. Our country that took on the Herculean task of reversing the flow of the Chicago River to protect the city's drinking water can no longer muster the resources to modernize public water systems to prevent our children from being poisoned by lead. Our country that built the greatest military the world has ever seen, sending a signal that we will not cower in front of anyone, now finds itself with leaders who believe in the misguided notion that it is simply better to hide behind walls than to help lead with strength.

Make no mistake, America has not lost her greatness. Our Nation remains the dominant force on the global stage. But if we don't act, if we don't invest in ourselves, our adversaries are positioned to overtake us.

Though some may try to convince us the path forward is less engagement with the world, less acceptance of others, and less investment in ourselves, I know the path forward for our country cannot include--does not include--turning our backs on the shared values that built this Nation.

Perhaps more than any other State, Illinois knows this. We represent all the strengths of our Nation, from our dynamic cities to our strong rural and industrial communities and everything in between. We are the realization of the values that have created that robust American economy, bolstered by a strong agricultural community and manufacturing sector, both of which innovate and strengthen our Nation with the help of wise public policy and investments.

Those investments enabled Illinois steelworkers to help us develop our farmland, build our cities, and secure our military strength. American manufacturing built this Nation, but too many of the steel mills we relied on to win World War II have been idled or shuttered completely.

After years of illegal trade practices, like dumping of cheap foreign products and currency manipulation by our competitors, our manufacturing base has been weakened. That hurts not only American jobs but also our Nation's military strength as well as the resilience of our entire economy. We simply need to do a better job of keeping manufacturing jobs within our borders, and we need to make the investments necessary to ensure that we have a workforce trained for our 21st century jobs.

We can do better by Illinois' tens of thousands of farmers as well. These farmers, ranchers, and agricultural workers form the basis of our Nation. They all wake up with a purpose, each farm feeding nearly 170 people every year while supporting an industry that is developing cutting-edge biofuels and other technologies.

I have seen firsthand the painful price our Nation pays because of our overreliance on oil imported from our competitors. The simple fact is that American farmers are helping us improve our national security. They are helping to strengthen our Armed Forces and our entire country every day. They are already helping produce billions of gallons of clean fuel for our cars, our factories, and our military, and every single one of those gallons brings us closer to energy independence.

We cannot afford to leave our agricultural sector behind. We should be working to preserve policies like the Renewable Fuel Standard that support agricultural jobs and to open new markets, like Cuba, for their goods.

For generations, our manufacturers and agricultural sectors have relied on a strong infrastructure network, including roads, bridges, waterways, railways, and air transportation, to get their goods to market, both domestically and internationally. Illinois has often led the way. We built the Nation's first elevated electric rail line in the 1800s. But today, far too much of that infrastructure is crumbling. It is in dire need of the investments our society once understood the need for. The down payments previous generations made paid dividends to us all in the form of increased tourism, lower costs, more efficient shipments, easier travel, and so many other benefits.

If we fail to continue the investments past generations have made, we risk falling behind our global competitors, hurting not only our tourism industry but also our manufacturers and our hard-working ranchers, farmers, and producers who will find it harder and more expensive to get their products to market.

If we choose to disregard our infrastructure much longer, we simply will not be able to compete in the 21st century global economy. Improving our infrastructure isn't a partisan issue. It is common sense. It is an economic priority, a defense priority, and a national security imperative. This is something we can all work on together.

I am proud to say that the first bill I proposed after arriving here in the Senate passed unanimously with bipartisan support. It will cut redtape and help streamline efforts to modernize our infrastructure and allow our economy to continue growing for generations to come.

That is also true of supporting our schools, colleges, and universities. We have developed global gold standards for education that enable our manufacturers, agricultural workers, engineers, and brilliant Americans all across every sector to push our economy further.

There is a reason that wealthy elites across the globe--including world leaders from foreign lands--still send their children to be educated on our shores, in world class institutions like the University of Illinois and the University of Chicago. Our education system is widely recognized as the best in the world. Our teachers and institutions continue to produce some of the best trained and most skilled professionals in every field imaginable--both American and international students. That is a good thing.

But more and more Americans are no longer able to access those same educational opportunities. We have priced too many of our own children out of the market for those colleges and universities that we have developed to ensure our Nation's workforce remains

more skilled than our competitors, or we have saddled them with crippling debt. We are failing to make the necessary investments in K- 12 public institutions that, regardless of ZIP Code, should be preparing every single one of our children to lead our country into the future.

Quality primary education should not be a privilege only for the wealthy, and it should not depend on rolling the dice on receiving a voucher. In the greatest and wealthiest Nation in the world, a quality education should be a right for every single American child. Our Nation's promise of opportunity should be a reality for every child in America, not just for those whose parents can afford it. We already have some of the world's greatest teachers, the brightest students, and the best facilities within our own borders. All we have to do is ensure they have the resources they need to succeed. That means our kids should not have to worry about going to school hungry or getting the help they need after school or being able to pay for college when they graduate high school.

That is why I focus on commonsense solutions to increase access to educational opportunity, whether by helping to lead the charge to make college more affordable or doing well to ensure the education we are providing people actually helps them find good-paying jobs when they graduate.

In that vein, I am also disheartened by the recent erosion of civil rights protections in our Nation. The calls for bigger walls and closed doors are not only bad, costly policies, they run counter to our society's shared value for inclusion over exclusion. Too many of us seem to forget the immigrant roots within our own families. If we lose sight of our Nation's founding principles, as some in Washington would like us to do, we will lose out on the innovations we have seen from immigrants and immigrant families.

If we had rejected immigrants years ago, Apple Computers might never have been founded by the son of a Syrian man. I worry that at a time when we still have so much work to do to make our Union more perfect and to provide truly equal rights for all, under the current administration we are at risk of backtracking on hard-fought progress made by civil rights leaders who bled and even died for the rights of all Americans, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, income or ZIP Code to have the right to vote, to have equal protection under the law, to have basic worker protections, and for the everyday rights and privileges so many of us take for granted. We still have so much progress left to make if we want the American dream to be accessible to all Americans--equal pay for equal work, a criminal justice system that truly provides justice for all, nationwide leave policies that enable anyone to take time to care for a sick family member or to start a family, a society that is accessible for all disabled Americans and truly equal for all LGBTQ Americans.

I worry that we are at risk of going backward instead of forward. Failing to continue our Nation's inclusive nature weakens our global standing as well as the rest of the world begins to look elsewhere for moral leadership. That would be a failure for us and a weakening of our Nation that I will fight to prevent.

Of course, I also know how much our military has contributed to our Nation's greatness throughout our history. We must do a better job of recognizing these contributions, not just by purchasing equipment and technology, though what our skilled workforce has done is the envy of the world, but also by ensuring that we recognize and respect the sacrifices made by our troops, our military families, and our veterans. Servicemembers embody our values of shared sacrifice and perseverance, of loyalty and selfless service, and they each make great sacrifices to protect us.

They deserve from their leaders in Washington a clear sense of mission and strategy, and they deserve to know we fully support them. So, yes, when the drums of war are beating in the White House or in Congress, you can bet I am going to be right here on the floor of the Senate, asking tough questions and making sure our leaders in Washington, especially those who have never worn the uniform, truly consider the true costs of war--not just in dollars and cents but in human lives--in the commitments we are making on behalf of the Nation. I will also be here to remind my colleagues that we are all dishonored when any veteran is forced to lay their head down to sleep on the same streets they defended. We must end veterans homelessness. When our troops come home, I will be working to see that the veterans receive the care and support they earned for the sacrifices they have made.

Each of these components of our society contribute to what has made our country great--our military, our values, our infrastructure, our agriculture, our manufacturers, and our world-class educational system. If we fall prey to our fears, to our worst demons, and allow any of these pillars to fall, we will lose our opportunity to remain the leader of the world. We can rebuild the foundation of our Nation's strength and revamp it for the 21st century, but we can't simply rest on our past successes and act like our greatness is guaranteed forever. It isn't. It will take work.

This is deeply personal for me. I wouldn't be here today without the public education that enabled me to serve in our military for more than two decades and allowed me to give back to my Nation, both in and out of uniform.

Our Nation would not be as strong as it is today without the millions of individuals who sacrificed to build it. Our Nation's strength--what truly makes America great--is rooted firmly in our shared sense of sacrifice. It comes from our single parents working multiple jobs just to make sure our kids don't go to school hungry; it comes from the farmer in Illinois waking long before dawn and working long after dusk to help power and feed our Nation; it comes from an immigrant family willing to put everything on the line to give their kids a chance at a better life than their own; it comes from the hard work and compassion, the sacrifice that Americans serving in our country in and out of the military demonstrate every single day.

We can all do a better job of remembering the shared values that have helped to build this Nation, but I want to make one thing clear: America is already great. We shouldn't let anyone tell us otherwise.

We know we still have a lot of work to do as a country, but let us not lose sight of the core values that make our improbable Union possible. We are still the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth, and if anyone has the capacity to overcome the challenges of today, it is this Nation. It is the American people.

I thank my colleagues for joining me today for my maiden speech.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, today on Equal Pay Day, we are reminded of the fact that women across the country still make less money for the exact same work as their male counterparts, which is especially problematic for women of color, for whom the gap is even wider. We are also reminded of how vital our court system is to the future of equal opportunity for women in America and to the future of our working families.

The next Supreme Court Justice will enter the Court at a critical moment for women's rights--a moment which could change the course of reproductive rights, voting rights, disability rights, and civil liberties in our Nation for generations to come. So naturally, I, much like my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, wanted to know how these critical issues fit in Judge

Gorsuch's judicial philosophy. I have serious concerns with his record of failing to protect women's health--granting corporations and healthcare providers leeway to undermine women's access to care. I am also troubled by his rulings on disability rights that would jeopardize access to public education for students with disabilities, which is particularly alarming for the 27 million women in America who live with a disability.

It is personal for me. As an American living with disabilities, my life isn't like those of many of my colleagues in Congress. Getting around can be difficult. I can't always get into restaurants or other public spaces, even here in the Capitol. I have to spend a lot of time planning how to get from one place to another.

I understand that not everyone thinks about these things, and for most of my adult life, I didn't either. But after I became injured in combat in Iraq, I learned how important the protections of laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act are to ensuring that millions of Americans with disabilities can live and thrive with dignity. Without them, Americans like me wouldn't be able to get to work, go to school, hold a job, pay taxes, go shopping, or do any of the things most of us take for granted. That is why I am speaking out today, because it matters deeply to me that our next Supreme Court Justice understand just how vital these protections are for Americans living with a disability. It is not just a disabilities rights issue; it is a civil rights issue.

Similarly, a woman's access to healthcare is also a civil rights issue, and it is an issue that affects every single American. When a woman can't get the care she needs, her family suffers, and when her family suffers, her community suffers and our Nation suffers. That is why I find it so deeply troubling that Judge Gorsuch has time and again actively worked against reproductive justice. In a dissenting opinion, he argued in favor of defunding Planned Parenthood in Utah based on evidence that other judges deemed as false. In the Hobby Lobby case, he made it clear that he favors the religious beliefs of corporations over the rights of women to make their own choices about their bodies.

What is worse, that isn't the only time Judge Gorsuch ruled to put corporate rights over human rights. You may have heard about a case in my home State of Illinois in which Judge Gorsuch ruled in favor of the rights of a trucking company over the rights of an employee in grave danger through no fault of his own. That is deeply troubling to me. He also dissented from a ruling giving a female UPS driver just the opportunity--the opportunity--to prove sex discrimination, and then again on a decision to fine a company that failed to properly train a worker, resulting in that worker's death.

Judge Gorsuch's record makes it very clear that he is willing to elevate large corporations at the expense of everyday Americans, jeopardizing our civil rights. That is why it is so important to me that he explain his judicial philosophy, that he explain to me his view on so many of these critical issues.

But then, during 4 days of hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Judge Gorsuch had the chance to clarify the philosophy behind his past rulings--to explain how his rulings may reveal his judicial philosophy as a Supreme Court Justice. However, instead of addressing these concerns, he dodged these questions--questions on some of the most important issues of our time. He wouldn't even express clearly his views on Roe v. Wade. The American people simply deserve better than that.

Earning a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court requires much more than a genial demeanor and an ability to artfully dodge questions. It requires honesty in answering even the toughest questions. That is why I cannot vote to confirm Judge Gorsuch.

I take seriously my constitutional responsibility as a U.S. Senator to offer the President my informed consent, and it is clear that Judge Gorsuch has not provided some of the most essential information needed to grant him a lifetime appointment to our Nation's highest Court. Therefore, I am voting no on his nomination and supporting continued debate on the subject because I can't vote for a nominee when so many questions are left unanswered.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this vote to allow States to defund Planned Parenthood and other title X funded health programs is simply shameful and dangerous, and millions of Americans across this country, including tens of thousands of women and men in Illinois, are going to suffer as a result.

This vote is particularly devastating to the 2.7 million Americans who depend on Planned Parenthood for their basic preventive healthcare each year. I personally understand what is at stake with this vote because I have been there. When I was working my way through college as a waitress, with the help of Pell grants and student loans and student work-study, I relied on Planned Parenthood for my basic healthcare, for services that are just as simple as a simple physical that I needed to get that waitressing job. I went to Planned Parenthood because that is all I could afford on a student's budget, and I needed to get that second job.

While I can relate to the obvious good that Planned Parenthood does, many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, unfortunately, simply cannot. They don't understand what is at stake.

Let's take a look at my home State of Illinois. In Illinois alone, Planned Parenthood serves 64,000 patients annually. Of those, 34,000 seek testing for sexually transmitted diseases, and nearly 7,000 are seeking out cancer screenings. So by defunding this organization, what they are really doing is stripping thousands of Illinoisans and Americans all across this country from access to essential healthcare. That is simply unacceptable.

We can't play politics with women's healthcare. Planned Parenthood should be able to do its job and continue providing quality care and services without fear of partisan or discriminatory attacks.

The bottom line is that Planned Parenthood is one of the Nation's largest women's healthcare providers, and it is essential to the health of our families and our country.

This vote makes taking away not just Planned Parenthood's funding but funding from any organization that receives title X easier, turning women around the country into second-class citizens and harming millions of Americans in the process. Why would we make it easier to take away a health center that helps our women's public health system and serves as a lifeline for affordable, preventive services like physicals, disease testing, and cancer screenings? Women and men all over the country need these services. Our States and our local communities need these services because they meet a need that would otherwise not be met.

I want the men and women across this country to know that I am not going to give up. Democrats are not going to give up. I will continue to fight to protect title X funding and the patients who depend on it. It is just too important.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take this time to share with my colleagues why Scott Pruitt is unqualified to be Administrator of the EPA and why I oppose his nomination.

I just got a new job here in the Senate when the people of Illinois elected me last November, and I have a little advice for Mr. Pruitt on how to succeed in an interview. No. 1, don't go to a job interview and spend the entire time dodging questions. You don't tell the people interviewing you to go file document requests, which Mr. Pruitt can

reject as attorney general, and you don't oppose policies that strengthen our energy security like the renewable fuel standard. I am concerned that the RFS will be gutted under a Scott Pruitt-led EPA.

As someone who fought to defend this great Nation, I see firsthand the price we pay for our dependence on oil imported from our adversaries. I already fought a war over oil, and I would rather run my car on American-grown corn and soybeans than oil from the Middle East. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, 50 percent of all casualties occurred during convoy operations, and 80 percent of all convoy operations were conducted to transport diesel fuel. I think it is high time we invest more energy and more money and more support into development of biofuels like ethanol.

In addition to risking lives, we are wasting resources. Annually, we spend approximately $67.5 billion protecting global oil supplies. At home, Americans are using more gas than ever before. Yet OPEC has made it clear they are controlling the price we pay at the pump.

For example, in November of 2016, OPEC decided to cut its oil production to increase prices, and it caused a 10-percent increase in prices that very day. By December 12, prices had reached an 18-month high. We should not be risking lives and wasting money when we can use energy grown right here at home in States like mine. When we are producing more oil at home than ever before, that doesn't mean we can gut policies that are helping our Nation become energy independent. We need an EPA Administrator who will work with Congress to help us find ways to cut, not increase, our use of oil.

Scott Pruitt called the RFS unworkable. He clearly doesn't know that the renewable fuel standard is delivering triple bottom-line benefits. It is good for our security, it is good for our economy, and it is good for our climate. In my State of Illinois alone, the RFS employs more than 4,000 people and generates more than $5 billion in economic impact. Nationwide it is supporting 86,000 direct jobs. Those are good jobs with good wages. Those are people who are going home and paying their mortgages, sending their kids to school, and saving money toward retirement. It has helped to generate $8.7 billion in tax revenues that go to schools, roads, and first responders.

Mr. Pruitt's failure to support the RFS is not the only reason I oppose his nomination.

During his confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I sit on, Mr. Pruitt gave vague, hollow, and evasive answers. It was clear that he either doesn't support or understand the mission of the very Agency he would like to lead.

Mr. Pruitt, the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect the basic ingredients that people need for a good life. It is to protect our air and our water. These issues, public health issues, are what he has spent his career in helping Big Oil to dismantle.

Take the issue of lead poisoning. One of the responsibilities of the EPA is to enforce our lead contamination laws that keep lead out of our air and water. When questioned at his confirmation hearing, I was shocked that Mr. Pruitt was unaware that there was no safe level of lead for children.

As a mom, this terrifies me. I remember sitting in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee when we had hearings on the Flint water crisis. I am a mom of a 2-year-old, and at the time my baby was just 1 year old. I remember being pregnant and having my daughter. I looked out into that audience, and I saw a mom holding a baby bottle that looked exactly like one my daughter drank out of--a little bottle with a pink top on it. The water in her baby bottle that she had to make her formula with was brown. It was brown. I thought about what it would have been like for me to have been drinking that water while I was pregnant and to have fed that water to my child and to have had the choice of: Could I have afforded bottled water or would I have to feed my daughter that water? It is not acceptable, not in the greatest country on the face of the Earth.

Mr. Pruitt doesn't know there is no safe level of lead allowed in the drinking water for children? Even low levels of lead can cause permanent brain damage in kids, lower IQs, and inflict other cognitive damage. There is no excuse for our Nation's EPA Administrator to not know that basic fact. That is a serious oversight, especially in the aftermath of the Flint water crisis. Lead in schools and in public waterways is a serious problem for Illinois children as well as for the children of Michigan. It is a problem for families. It is a problem for families and for children all across this Nation.

The EPA should work proactively to prevent crises like in Flint and to protect America's water supplies, but Mr. Pruitt's record of filing lawsuit after lawsuit that challenge the EPA's authority to carry out its mission doesn't inspire much confidence that his goals are the same as the Agency's that he seeks to lead. The American people simply cannot afford to have someone with a well-documented history of putting corporate polluters' profits before our clean air and water leading the Agency that is meant to safeguard them--the EPA.

We are only starting to learn the extent of Mr. Pruitt's conflicts of interest, and we have an opportunity to learn more about these conflicts now that a State judge in Oklahoma has ordered Mr. Pruitt to release by Tuesday potentially thousands of emails he exchanged with fossil fuel interests in his job as the Oklahoma attorney general. Senate Republicans are forcing us to vote on Mr. Pruitt before Tuesday because they know the American people will be alarmed and shocked by what his correspondence will reveal.

Mr. Pruitt has shown he is unwilling and unable to do this job. I remember, during questioning in committee, he was asked what was the role of the EPA. He spent the majority of his answer talking about the Federal Government not infringing on States' rights and talking about pulling the Federal Government and the EPA out of the States' business. Only at the very end did he add, almost as an afterthought--oh, yes-- ``and to safeguard the water and the air.'' The name of the Agency is the Environmental Protection Agency. That should have been the first thing he said, not the last.

He doesn't understand the central public health and environmental challenges that face us. Instead of siding with people, he has chosen to side with corporate polluters. He doesn't have a single environmental accomplishment to his name. He is unqualified, and I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing his nomination.

As someone who represents a farming State, I remember when President Trump came out to the Midwest and promised the American farmers that he would support the renewable fuel standard. I am deeply disappointed he has nominated someone to head the EPA who is clearly opposed to the renewable fuel standard.

I asked Mr. Pruitt several times in committee, in several different ways, if he would stand by the American farmer. I even told him what the right answer was--side with, stand with, protect the producers, and he refused to answer. He gave vague, evasive answers and refused to commit and refused to support the American farmer.

It is a no-brainer. Support the American farmer. Don't break the President's promise. Don't back away from the RFS.

Mr. Pruitt is continuing his administration's tradition of using alternative facts. The alternative to facts is fiction, and we cannot afford to have an Administrator who questions climate change. Climate change is an urgent threat to our Nation. Increasing temperatures are causing extreme weather events at alarming rates. We are witnessing more intense droughts, wildfires, and extreme weather across this country. If we put our heads in the sand and fail to curb the pollution that drives climate change, the effects will be devastating as our air quality will worsen, which will trigger more asthma attacks and other respiratory issues for our children; our coastal communities will be threatened by sea level rise; our national security will be threatened as climate change creates instability around the world.

ADM Mike Mullen, who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under the Bush and Obama administrations, had this to say about climate change:

Whatever the cause, climate change's potential impacts are

sobering and far-reaching. Glaciers are melting at a faster

rate, causing water supplies to diminish in Asia; rising sea

levels could lead to a mass migration and displacement

similar to what we saw in Pakistan's 2010 floods.

The National Intelligence Council's report, ``Global Trends 2030,'' made similar observations.

Their report states: ``Many developing and fragile states, such as in Sub-Saharan Africa, face increasing strain from resource constraints and climate change, pitting different tribal and ethnic groups against one another and accentuating the separation of various identities.''

Climate change, clean air, clean water, and fighting lead contamination are not partisan issues. We don't only have these issues in red States or blue States--they are universal--and the American people expect us to make sure the head of the Agency that is charged with safeguarding these vital health priorities will be able and willing to do the job.

Since Mr. Pruitt was nominated, I have heard concerns from thousands of my constituents. Let me share a few words that I have received from my home State.

This letter is from one of my constituents from Illinois.

He writes:

I am asking you to vote ``no'' on Scott Pruitt's nomination

as Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

America's clean water and air are a shining example for much

of the world, and the EPA is their defender. Mr. Pruitt

demonstrates no understanding of ocean acidification and the

urgent risk it poses to American marine life, fishermen, and

the communities that depend on them. Americans must protect

our water and air from further pollution while we work

collaboratively toward win-win solutions to challenges like

ocean acidification. Mr. Pruitt ignores established science,

and he is the wrong choice to lead the EPA. As my Senator,

please vote ``no'' on my behalf.

I hear you, and I share your concerns, and I will be voting no on Mr. Pruitt as Administrator of the EPA.

As you may know, EPA region 5 is based in my State, in Chicago. I have heard from a number of EPA employees as well as from constituents--employees, both past and present--who are worried about the Agency they have served and loved. Here are some words from a former region 5 employee.

He writes:

Dear Senator Duckworth, I and many other former employees

of the Environmental Protection Agency want to share our

concern about Attorney General Scott Pruitt's qualifications

to serve as the next Administrator of the EPA. Our

perspective is not partisan. Having served under both

Republican and Democratic Presidents, we recognize the right

of a new administration to pursue new policies that protect

our environment, but the EPA's Administrator must act in the

public's interest and not simply advance the agendas of the

industries that it regulates.

Decisions that affect the public's health or natural

resources should respect the law and reflect the best

scientific evidence available. Mr. Pruitt's record and public

statements suggest that he does not share these values. As

Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt issued more than 50

press releases celebrating lawsuits to overturn EPA standards

to limit mercury emissions from powerplants, reduce smog

levels in cities and regional haze in parks, clean up the

Chesapeake Bay, or control greenhouse gas emissions. In

contrast, none of Mr. Pruitt's press releases refer to any

action he has taken to enforce environmental laws or to

actually reduce pollution.

Of even greater concern, his statements frequently ignore

or misrepresent EPA's authority to regulate or its obligation

to do so under the Clean Air or Clean Water Act. Mr. Pruitt

has shown little interest in the kind of scientific and

factual evidence that must guide EPA decisions. Mr. Pruitt

has said that humanity's contribution to global warming is

subject to considerable debate. That statement is at odds

with the consensus among scientists. Mr. Pruitt fails to

understand the difference between the public interest and the

private interest.

It is just amazing to me that we are even here, that this man was even nominated--someone who has sued the EPA, someone who has so clearly been in partnership with the fossil fuel industry and who has not put the interests of families and children first as opposed to the interests of the fossil fuel industry, which have been guiding him all the way.

I, in fact, was shocked to learn that Mr. Pruitt closed the Oklahoma Environmental Enforcement Unit established by his predecessor. Instead, he established a new litigation team to challenge the EPA and other Federal agencies. Let me say that again. When he became the Oklahoma attorney general, he closed the Oklahoma Environmental Enforcement Unit. Instead, he chose to start a new litigation team to challenge the EPA and other Federal agencies.

I did not see any indication from him, in his confirmation hearing, that he would not do the same once he gets to the Federal EPA. Perhaps that is the intent of the Trump administration, to bring someone in who will dismantle the EPA. That is why I am here tonight. That is why I am opposing him--because I put the needs of our children, the needs of our environment, and the needs of our national security in front of the needs of the biofuel industry. We need an Administrator who has the patience, skill, and commitment to public service in order to steer the EPA through challenges that are associated with protecting our public health.

I, too, cannot believe Mr. Pruitt has demonstrated that he has the qualities needed to lead the Environmental Protection Agency. I hope you will be happy to know that is why I am opposing his nomination.

A constituent from Deerfield, IL, wrote to me:

I am writing to ask that you raise your voice in Washington

against Scott Pruitt as President Trump's nominee for EPA

Administrator.

The EPA is an organization driven by science and dedicated

to protecting the climate and environment, not just for

Americans but for all citizens of the Earth. Mr. Pruitt, on

the other hand, disagrees with a vast majority of the

scientific establishment as to the extent of climate change

and humanity's role in it. He has made a name for himself by

opposing EPA's policies and missions in the past.

It is beyond me that anyone believes Mr. Pruitt could

effectively head the EPA and lead it further in its mission

to ensure we are responsible stewards of this planet's

environment and resources. I ask that you do your duty as a

citizen of this planet and vote ``no'' on Mr. Pruitt for this

position.

The EPA is an organization driven by science and dedicated

to protecting the climate and environment, not just for

Americans, but for all nations of the Earth. Mr. Pruitt, on

the other hand, disagrees with the vast majority of the

scientific establishment. Vote no on Mr. Pruitt for this

position.

I hope you all do your duty as representatives of the

American people by vocalizing our concerns with Mr. Pruitt to

your fellow Senators, urging them to see the fault in

President Trump's nomination.

Respectfully, Ethan, Deerfield, IL.

Well, Ethan, I am doing exactly that. That is why I am here today--to make sure that our colleagues understand how poorly suited Mr. Pruitt is to this job of Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Here is a letter from a Ph.D. student from Northwestern University.

As a Northwestern University doctorate student, I have

chosen to devote my life to the pursuit of scientific

knowledge. I am deeply troubled by the nomination of Scott

Pruitt, and I am really concerned about the upcoming Senate

vote.

The head of the EPA must uphold basic science and should

not be colluding with the polluters they are required to

regulate. Scott Pruitt cannot be trusted to head the EPA, an

agency that is charged with protecting all Americans from

threats to their water, air, and health.

Pruitt is also out of step with the vast majority of

scientists, not only those working in the field of climate

change, but also those who have dedicated their lives to

protecting our air and water. As a scientific agency charged

with protecting the public's health according to the best and

most recent science, the EPA deserves to be headed by someone

with a scientific background, or at least an appreciation for

scientific truth.

I strongly urge you as my Senator to stand up for me and my

neighbors, and I oppose this nomination.

Thank you so much, Amanda Cook, from North Lakeview Avenue

in Chicago.

Well, Amanda, I get it. I am with you. I, of course, did not pursue a Ph.D. in a scientific field, but it doesn't take a Ph.D. in a scientific field to know that a man who has sued the EPA over a dozen times is not someone suitable to lead the EPA; that a man who said that he doesn't know whether climate change truly is scientific fact should not be the man who is going to head the Agency enforced with dealing with the effects of global warming. He should not be the person who is in charge of the Agency that will be protecting our air and our water supply.

We have not even touched on what the costs will be to this Nation if we continue to neglect the well-being of our environment. Rising rates of asthma of our children will mean higher

medical costs. Lead in the water supply causing cognitive damage to our children will mean that additional resources must be spent in our schools in order to provide those children with the best opportunities that they can have to grow and thrive and will also result in greater medical bills to treat those children for the rest of their lives.

If you don't believe me, just ask the people of Flint, MI. They are dealing with it every single day--every single day--those parents of children who have now been affected by the lead in that water supply. And Mr. Pruitt chooses to defend and protect the needs of the biofuels industry over the needs of our children. That is not someone worthy of representing the American people. That is not someone worthy of heading this Agency.

Let's just stick to Mr. Pruitt's own words, not the words of others, not the words of my constituents, but his own words. This is what he said about the Agency that he has been chosen to lead. Mr. Pruitt describes himself as ``a leading advocate against the EPA's activist agenda.'' He said this on his LinkedIn page. We accessed this in January of 2016.

On the role of the EPA he says:

I believe the EPA has a role to play in our Republican form

of government. Air and water quality issues can cross State

lines and can sometimes require Federal intervention. At the

same time, the EPA was never intended to be our Nation's

frontline environmental regulator.

This was his testimony before the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in May of 2016.

I disagree with you. I disagree with you, Mr. Pruitt, because I was there at that hearing where there were both State EPA officials as well as Federal EPA officials trying to explain why they allowed Detroit's children to be poisoned. And the Federal EPA official knew about the lead in the water supply--in fact, had discovered it--and they were so timid about pursuing it that they waited too long and allowed the State to continue to move forward. Those Federal EPA officials were indeed on the frontline.

I asked the Regional Administrator, Would you not rather be in front of this committee today explaining why you acted too quickly to save the health and the future well-being of the children of Flint than to be here in front of us today explaining why you allowed them to be poisoned, and not exercise your right as the Federal EPA to step in when the health and well-being of American citizens were at stake?

So Mr. Pruitt, I disagree with you. The EPA was indeed intended to be one of our Nation's frontline environmental regulators.

On climate change, Mr. Pruitt has said:

Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates

of our time. That debate is far from settled. Scientists

continue to disagree about the degree and extent of global

warming and its connections to the actions of mankind. That

debate should be encouraged in classrooms, public forums, and

the halls of Congress.

Really. He is actually arguing that we should be teaching false science and should be encouraging it in classrooms and public forums. I can't think of something that would be a greater disservice to America than for the EPA Administrator to be someone who actually looks at scientific data--proven scientific data, facts--and rejects them. Yet, we know why he does. We know from his history. We know from his record in Oklahoma. He does it because the fossil fuel industry tells him so.

This is what he said about the Clean Power Plan:

The President could announce the most ``state friendly''

plan possible, but it would not change the fact that the

administration does not have the legal authority under the

Clean Air Act to regulate carbon emissions.

Yes, it does. Yes, it does, Mr. Pruitt.

He just said that in August of 2015.

Here is what he said on methane regulation:

My concern is that EPA is employing its flawed methodology

in order to rationalize new and unjustified Federal

regulations to solve a methane emissions problem that simply

does not exist.

This man does not believe in global warming. This man does not believe in scientific data.

If you don't believe the scientists, at least look at what is happening with the storm systems, with what is happening to the climate that is changing and affecting this Nation with increased drought, increased flooding, more severe weather, and erosion. We had the first climate change refugees of Louisiana where people who have lived for generations in the gulf have now seen their islands washed away and have to be resettled.

Even if you don't believe in the data, believe your eyes and believe the facts.

Mr. Pruitt also said:

The record does not support EPA's finding that mercury

poses public health hazards. Human exposure to methylmercury

resulting from coal-fired EGUs is exceedingly small.

That is simply untrue.

On legislating, he has said:

Legislation should not be ``we like clean air, so go make

clean air.'' That is what bothers me, that Congress gives

this general authority to EPA.

On Oklahoma's race to the bottom on environmental regulations--this has to do with the Federal regional haze standards--Mr. Pruitt said:

These standards threaten the competitive edge Oklahoma has

enjoyed for years with low cost and reliable electric

generation. This low-cost energy not only benefits Oklahoma

manufacturers but gives us a considerable edge in recruiting

new jobs.

He would rather increase the haze and the pollution in the environment. He would rather have an economic edge at the expense of the people of Oklahoma who must live and breathe more polluted air.

This is what he said on the renewable fuels standard:

The evidence is clear that the current ethanol fuel mandate

is unworkable. The decision by the EPA to lower that standard

is good news for Oklahoma consumers.

What he means is that it is good news for Oklahoma's fossil fuel producers. In fact, the renewable fuel standards have been a success and we should be adhering to them and we should be keeping the renewable fuel standards and supporting the producers.

I will bet on the American farmer any day of the week. Our farmers work hard. Our farmers produce the corn for ethanol right here in the United States. I would rather invest in them than in foreign oil. I would rather invest in them and in a fuel that is clean-burning versus a fuel that pollutes the environment for the next generation of our Nation.

Even if you don't believe in the science, believe in the dollars. Ethanol and biofuels employ tens of thousands of hard-working Americans all across this great Nation. It accounts for large proportions of the economies of the farming States, including Illinois, Iowa, Ohio. So even if you don't believe, you should at least support our farming communities.

It is a fact that Scott Pruitt is simply too extreme to lead the EPA. He once wrote an entire op-ed questioning the science of climate change. He said:

Global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates

of our time. 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.

This is according to an op-ed written by Scott Pruitt in the Tulsa World.

He goes on:

Healthy debate is the lifeblood of American democracy, and

global warming has inspired one of the major policy debates

of our time. That debate is far from settled.

I agree that healthy debate is important to democracy, but when that debate is over and becomes an item of fact, it is just simply silly, and in the case of clean air and clean water and climate change, it gets to be dangerous.

His climate denial goes against the scientific community. Ninety- seven percent of scientists, including those at NASA, agree that human activities are causing climate change.

The 18 major national scientific organizations issued a joint statement with the following conclusion:

Observations throughout the world make it clear that

climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research

demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human

activities are the primary driver.

Mr. Pruitt's climate denial is also against the will of the American people. In fact, a New York Times/Stanford poll from 2015 showed that 77 percent of Americans support government action to combat climate change. This poll found that 83 percent of Americans, including 61 percent of Republicans, say that if nothing is done to

reduce emissions, global warming will be a serious problem in the future. Seventy-seven percent of Americans, according to this poll, say that the Federal Government should be doing a substantial amount to combat climate change.

In a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll from 2009, 67 percent of Americans stated that they supported EPA action to curb carbon pollution from powerplants, while only 29 percent opposed them. In that same poll, 57 percent supported requiring companies to cut emissions even if it means higher power bills. This was an increase from 48 percent in October of 2009 to the poll that was conducted in June of 2014.

Mr. Pruitt's blatantly anti-environment agenda threatens public health. He is unfit to lead an Agency that he sued at every turn to block protections for clean air and water. He sued the EPA over the legality of the Clean Power Plan. He claims that the EPA does not have the authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

Since becoming Oklahoma's top legal officer in 2011, Mr. Pruitt has unsuccessfully attempted to stop vital protections of public health-- unsuccessfully. This includes standards for reducing soot and smog pollution that crosses interstate lines; protections against emissions of mercury, arsenic, acid gases, and other toxic pollutants from powerplants; and standards to improve air quality in national parks and wilderness areas. Each time he has done this, he has failed. Yet he continues to file suit.

He did many of these suits in conjunction with the fossil fuel industry. Some of those suits are still outstanding. Yet he has said-- he has refused to commit to recusing himself from any of these lawsuits that may come in front of the EPA while he is the Administrator of the Agency. That is a conflict of interest. He will simply become the plaintiff, the judge, and the jury if he does not recuse himself. But of course that is his goal. His goal is to dismantle the EPA. His goal is to dismantle the Clean Water Act. His goal is to take away the authority of the EPA to regulate and protect those activities that affect our environment.

Mr. Pruitt launched three separate failed lawsuits against EPA's clean air rules, the regional haze cross-state air pollution rule, and the mercury and air toxics protections, otherwise known as MATs. The Supreme Court flat-out rejected Mr. Pruitt's challenges to the EPA's mercury standards. Thank God, because it protects millions of children from the effects of mercury, arsenic, and other dangers neurotoxins from coal plants.

Mr. Pruitt wants to block the EPA's clean water rule, which will protect the drinking water for over 117 million--that is one in three-- Americans. One in three Americans gets drinking water from streams that lacked clear protections before the clean water rule.

According to analysis of over 1,200 peer-reviewed scientific reports, small streams and wetlands play a critical role in the health of larger downstream bodies, such as rivers, lakes, bays, and coastal waters.

Mr. Pruitt doesn't even want the EPA to study fracking's potential links to water contamination. As recently as 2014, he sent a letter to the EPA Office of Inspector General warning against preliminary research into threats to water resources posed by hydraulic fracturing. He said he believed EPA's efforts to study whether fracking was linked to groundwater contamination was politically motivated. He is even afraid of a study. Not only is he trying to block the EPA's ability to regulate, he doesn't even want the EPA to study it. He doesn't even want it to have the chance to develop the data to show that our water supply is under danger from fracking.

This man doesn't believe in scientific data, but he is afraid of it. If he weren't afraid of it, he would support these studies because they would show that he was right. But here is the problem: He is not right. He is wrong. The scientific data shows that such activities pollute our water supply.

Mr. Pruitt has repeatedly failed to act to protect the people of Oklahoma from increasingly powerful earthquakes caused by fossil fuel extraction through the process of fracking as well. We have had a string of level 5 magnitude earthquakes hit the State of Oklahoma. Scientists have indicated that they are being caused by a dramatic rise in the use of hydraulic fracturing--fracking--to produce oil and gas. The problem lies in the massive volumes of wastewater unearthed in the process of unlocking oil and gas. Operators typically dump salty wastewater, injecting high volumes of fluid into the disposal wells dug thousands of feet below the Earth's surface, but the pressure from wastewater is wreaking havoc on Oklahoma's fault lines.

The Oklahoma Geological Survey bluntly concluded last year that it was very likely that the majority of earthquakes that ripped through the central and northern regions of the State were caused by this process of injecting wastewater into disposal wells. This was reported by NBC News in November of 2016.

In 2016, the National Review reported that Mr. Pruitt compared taking on Big Oil to offenses committed by the British leading to the American Revolution. It said:

The United States was born out of a revolution against, in

the words of the Declaration of Independence, an ``arbitrary

government'' that put men on trial for ``pretended offenses''

and ``abolish[ed] the Free System of English laws.'' Brave

men and women stood up to that oppressive government, and

this, the greatest democracy of them all, one that is

governed by the rule of law and not by men, is the product.

Some of our States have forgotten this founding principle and are acting less like Jefferson and Adams and more like George III.

A group of Democratic attorneys general has announced it intends to criminally investigate oil and gas companies that have disputed the science behind manmade global warming. Backed by green energy interests and environmental lobbying groups, the coalition has promised to use intrusive investigations, costly litigations, and criminal prosecutions to silence critics of its climate change agenda. This is from the National Review.

He is comparing the efforts to take on Big Oil to offenses committed by the British leading to the American Revolution. I will take on Big Oil any day. I think it is important for our Nation's future.

As we have heard during the course of this debate, those of us who are troubled by the prospect of Mr. Pruitt becoming EPA Administrator believe that the process to this point has been marred by his failure to provide us with the information we feel we need to evaluate his suitability to serve in this critical role. Meanwhile, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that Mr. Pruitt has been fully forthcoming. So let's put this dispute aside and turn our attention to a question Mr. Pruitt did answer. It may be among the most revealing of his responses. Unfortunately, what his answer reveals is the precise reason so many of us and so many of the people we represent are opposed to his confirmation and convinced he is absolutely the wrong person to head the agency.

Senator Carper asked Mr. Pruitt: Are there any other EPA regulations that are on the books today that you do support?

Mr. Pruitt declined to name a single one. Not one. He has many that he could choose from. In fact, the question should have been something of a softball, in my view, giving him a chance to embrace the EPA's core mission as a public health Agency. He couldn't find a single regulation that he could support within the EPA. The man who is supposed to be heading the EPA could not think of a single regulation of this Agency that he could support.

Instead, what Mr. Pruitt does not seem to grasp is that EPA regulations are not simply policies to be litigated. In reality, they are lifesaving protections for so many Americans, and they create millions of dollars of net benefits.

Let's take a look at some of the public health environmental protections Mr. Pruitt cannot bring himself to support.

The mercury and air toxic standards have been projected to save up to 11,000 lives annually from premature deaths--11,000 lives annually from premature deaths, saved because of these regulations. They also prevent heart attacks and avoid 5,700 emergency room visits. That translates into over $80 billion in net benefits in a single year. That is a lot of lives saved, illnesses avoided, and economic benefits created that a

would-be EPA Administrator can't bring himself to support.

Of course, we should have expected Mr. Pruitt to name that rule since he has sued to block it twice, the second time being after EPA modified the rule to address concerns raised by the Supreme Court. Perhaps the number of rules we could expect Mr. Pruitt to support is a bit smaller than we might have thought since he blocked so many of them. In case after case after case, he has sued to block the EPA from working to save lives, prevent illnesses, and create economic benefits.

He has sued on behalf of Oklahoma to block the cross-state air pollution rule, otherwise known as the good neighbor rule. That rule cuts the pollution that leads to dangerous, sometimes deadly, urban smog and soot. When he sued, he was suing to block the American public from enjoying the following benefits: up to 34,000 lives saved per year, along with some $280 billion in health benefits.

When Mr. Pruitt brought an action against EPA's health-based standards for ground-level ozone, he was standing in opposition to the protections that would help avoid 660 premature deaths and over 230,000 asthma attacks, while creating $4.5 billion in health benefits net of cost. Even if you don't believe in the science, you should at least believe in the dollars and cents of the lives saved. Yet he continues to sue the EPA to oppose these regulations.

Although Mr. Pruitt has been a tireless litigator, he has not challenged every one of EPA's public health protections. But still, when asked, the man who wants to become the Administrator of the EPA could not name a single regulation of the Agency that he is about to take charge of that he supported. That means, for example, Mr. Pruitt probably doesn't support a rule that reduces the sulfur in gasoline so that emission control devices on cars can work more effectively. Don't we all want cars to work effectively? I guess he doesn't. This particular rule stands to create net benefits of up to $17.5 billion by 2030. Those dollar figures include the benefit of saving up to 2,000 lives and preventing 2,220 hospital admissions and asthma-related emergency room visits.

In 2015, the EPA set standards for the emissions of toxic air pollutants at refineries. As a result, 1.4 million fewer people will be exposed to cancer risks, yielding a 15- to 20-percent reduction in cancer incidents linked to refinery air pollution. According to his answer, Mr. Pruitt--who is seeking to be the EPA Administrator--doesn't support those advancements in public health.

He also doesn't support rules that are protecting the brain development of our children from exposure to lead in both gasoline and paint. Otherwise, he may have answered my colleague Mr. Carper by saying that he supported the highly successful gasoline lead phaseout that dates all the way back to 1988. That regulation produced health benefits to the tune of over $6 billion. He didn't even indicate that he supports a rule addressing childhood lead exposure and renovation repair and painting.

Mr. Pruitt didn't even tell us that he supports rules that put or keep money in the pockets of families and businesses along with the environmental benefits they deliver.

EPA's greenhouse gas and fuel efficiency standards for cars and light-duty trucks are calculated to save families $1.7 trillion--that is a ``t''--in fuel costs.

The EPA's 2012 rule limiting the emissions of volatile organic compounds in natural gas production were calculated to create up to $19 million in cost savings in 2015 alone because of the value of the material recovered in the process of controlling emissions. Those benefits, however, did not inspire Mr. Pruitt to support them.

The list of health protections Mr. Pruitt does not support goes on and on. It includes health-based standards for fine particles or soot which will achieve between $3.7 billion and $9 billion in health benefits net of cost.

All of the rules I have mentioned are just a representative sample, nowhere near an exhaustive list.

When Mr. Pruitt declined to name a single environmental regulation he supported, he showed us how little he supports the central mission of the EPA, which is not to produce rules and regulations but to take action that creates health, environmental, and economic benefits for the American people.

Clearly, along with much of the rest of his record, Mr. Pruitt is declining to tell us he does support the health and environment protection EPA has established. It shows why he is not a suitable candidate to lead this Agency. He has shown throughout his career that he has a blatantly anti-environmental agenda, and this agenda threatens public health. He is not fit to lead this Agency--an Agency that he has sued every single chance he has gotten to block protections for clean air and water. I wonder why he does that. I wonder why.

Well, this might be a reason why. According to the National Institute on Money and State Politics--we accessed this in December of last year, just a few months ago--it appears that Mr. Pruitt has received over $314,000 from fossil fuel industries since 2002. According to them, Scott Pruitt has received a total of $314,996. He received $8,201 in 2002, $76,970 in 2006, $112,150 in 2010, and $117,775 in 2014.

It keeps growing and growing. I guess he is being rewarded by the fossil fuel industry for suing the EPA over and over. I can't imagine why they would continue to give him more money, other than the fact that he keeps suing the EPA.

He has used letters written by Devon Energy lawyers to send to the EPA. According to the New York Times, he sent a letter to the EPA from his own office that was written by lawyers of Devon Energy, one of Oklahoma's big oil and gas companies, and was brought to him by their chief lobbyist. Their chief lobbyist, Mr. William Whitsitt, at the time directed government relations for the company, and had presented a note to Mr. Pruitt's office. Mr. Pruitt 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.

I don't think that is acceptable, and I certainly don't think that it is a suitable way for someone who is going to head the EPA to conduct himself.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a January 17 letter from the African American environmental justice community leaders.

Mr. President, as is stated in this letter, it says:

As the African American leaders of environmental justice

organizations, we urge the Senators serving on the

Environment and Public Works Committee to oppose the

confirmation of Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. We are outraged that Mr.

Pruitt promises to set back and dismantle the policies and

programs we have worked for more than 30 years to develop

with community organizations across the nation.

There is nothing in Mr. Pruitt's record as current Oklahoma

State Attorney General to demonstrate that he would be

dedicated to the mission of the EPA, which is to protect

human health and the environment. Nor does his career

indicate any action to improve environmental conditions in

people color communities, who disproportionately burdened

with pollution.

Mr. Pruitt appears to relish the opportunity to remove

standards that are protective of our basic rights to a

healthy and safe environment. Case in point: Mr. Pruitt's

dogged effort to axe the Obama Administration's Clean Power

Plan would have devastating effects on predominantly African

American communities.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a January 17 letter from the leaders of over 20 regional and nationwide Latino civic organizations to Members of the Senate.

Stated in this letter, it says:

As Latino leaders, members and representatives of the

undersigned organizations committed to efforts that support

our communities' health, advancement, safety, and

well-being, and on behalf of the concerned communities we

represent, we strongly urge you to oppose the president-

elect's nominee to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

Latinos overwhelmingly support actions to fight climate

change. We recognize the importance of protecting the

environment: 97 percent of Latinos agree we have a moral

obligation to take care of our environment. In December, the

National Hispanic Leadership Agenda, a coalition of 40 of the

leading Latino organizations nationwide, voiced their

opposition to Mr. Pruitt's nomination.

Putting the EPA in Mr. Pruitt's hands will threaten our

children's health, turn back the clock on landmark efforts to

clean up our air, water and climate, and imperil the United

States' position as a global lead energy leader.

I am also deeply concerned that we are holding this vote so quickly, when not all of the evidence of Mr. Pruitt's activities has been brought to light.

The fact of the matter is that we are still waiting for almost 2,000 emails to be released from his time as the Oklahoma State attorney general. Only on Thursday afternoon was there a ruling that said those emails must be released. Yet we are going to hold a vote, and my colleagues will be forced to make a decision on behalf of the constituents of their great States based on incomplete information.

I don't understand the need to rush this. I don't understand why we would hold this vote so soon, so quickly, when there are other nominees for other positions in the President's Cabinet whom we could vote on, who do not have 2,000 hidden emails waiting to be released, waiting to be reviewed.

I served on the Benghazi Committee in the House. I have to tell you that one of the refrains I heard over and over from my Republican colleagues, Republican voices, was that they just wanted to pursue transparency, and they wanted to see all the emails, and yet the very same people who were so dogged not too long ago now don't care to look at any emails when it comes to Mr. Pruitt.

Why is that? Why are we so eager to have this vote? Do you just want him to start dismantling the EPA that much sooner? Can't we wait a week? I think we are doing a disservice to the gentlemen and women who serve in this body. They deserve to have complete information before we hold this vote. I think those emails that would be disclosed deserve to be looked at. They deserve the light of day--transparency--so that we can continue to evaluate and truly have more complete information on Mr. Pruitt and his time as the Oklahoma State attorney general before we pass this vote.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a February 6 letter from nearly 500 former employees of the EPA to Leader McConnell.

The unemotional appeal lays out the facts directly and clearly and, as such, reads as a scathing condemnation of the Oklahoma attorney general. Stated in this letter it says:

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.

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.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise to yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Senator Schumer.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I do not believe that the President nominated the best candidate to serve as Secretary of Education. I don't believe he even nominated a qualified candidate. Mrs. DeVos has never taught, never worked in a school system, and has no educational degree in education policy.

I was hoping that she would ease my concerns over her qualifications at the confirmation hearing and prove that she was indeed up for the job, but, instead, Mrs. DeVos failed to study, showed up unprepared, and appeared unfamiliar with the foundational civil rights law that guarantees every student, including those with disabilities, the right to a quality equitable education.

I would not be here today were it not for strong public schools and civil rights protections. Confirming her to lead the agency tasked with educating our children and helping them develop into successful adults would be a mistake for our children because they would have to pay for and live with this mistake for decades to come. There is simply no way that I can support her nomination.

I ask the Senator, how is it possible that we could have a Secretary of Education who does not understand or even know about those Federal protections

for students with disabilities to have access to equitable and fair education?

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my debate time to Senator Schumer.

Madam Clerk, how am I recorded?

On behalf of the 1.2 million Illinoisans--

--who will lose health insurance with this repeal of the ACA and for all those with preexisting conditions, I stand on prosthetic legs to vote no.

Mr. Speaker, on February 10, 2015, on Roll Call #69 on the Motion

to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 719--TSA Office of Inspection Accountability Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 10, 2015, on Roll Call #70 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 720--Gerardo Hernandez Airport Security Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 11, 2015, on Roll Call #71 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 100, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 11, 2015, on Roll Call #72 on H. Res. 100, Providing for consideration of S. 1, the Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 11, 2015, on Roll Call #74 on the Democratic Motion to Commit S. 1, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 11, 2015, on Roll Call #75 on Passage of S. 1--Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 11, 2015, on Roll Call #76 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 431--To award a Congressional Gold Medal to the Foot Soldiers who participated in Bloody Sunday, Turnaround Tuesday, or the final Selma to Montgomery Voting Rights March in March of 1965, which served as a catalyst for the Voting Rights Act of 1965, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 12, 2015, on Roll Call #77 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 101, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 12, 2015, on Roll Call #78 on H. Res. 101, Providing for consideration of H.R. 644, the Fighting Hunger Incentive Act of 2015 and H.R. 636, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend increased expensing limitations, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 12, 2015, on Roll Call #79 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 644, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 12, 2015, on Roll Call #80 on Passage of H.R. 644-- Fighting Hunger Incentive Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 13, 2015, on Roll Call #81 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 636, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 13, 2015, on Roll Call #82 on Passage of H.R. 636-- America's Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a moment to recognize one of my constituents, Holly Schlesser, and her selfless act for a child in need. This past fall Holly donated a piece of her liver to a friend's 8 month old baby, Madison Casey. Holly and Madison's mom, Tanya, are the wives of firefighters in Streamwood, Illinois. Service and sacrifice is a part of their daily lives. Madison was born with a rare genetic disorder that led to liver failure. Thanks to Holly Schlesser's selfless gift she now has real hope of growing up healthy and strong alongside her twin brother. The Schlesser and Casey families show us the importance of living through our actions.

Their story is also an important reminder about the incredible difference that organ and tissue donors can make. There is a large and heartbreaking gap between the supply and demand for lifesaving organs and tissue. Each day an average of 18 people in the United States in need of transplants die waiting. And without angels like Holly Schlesser, every 10 minutes a new person joins the national transplant waitlist.

In my home state of Illinois, Gift of Hope, which is part of the national organ and tissue donation system, is working hard to address this challenge by educating the public about the need for donors. They're making progress and experienced their second record-setting year in a row in 2014, helping make 1,024 lifesaving donations happen through the generosity of 336 organ donors and 1,912 tissue donors. I applaud the more than 5 million Illinoisans who have decided to become organ

and tissue donors and encourage other Americans to follow the example set by my neighbors.

Mr. Speaker, on February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #51 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 361--Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #52 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 615--Department of Homeland Security Interoperable Communications Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 2, 2015, on Roll Call #53 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 623--Social Media Working Group Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #54 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 70, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #55 on H. Res. 70, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 596) to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care-related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #57 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 596, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 3, 2015, on Roll Call #58 on Passage of H.R. 596--To repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and health care- related provisions in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #59 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 78, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #60 on H. Res. 78, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 527) Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015 and providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 50) Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #61 on Agreeing to the Cummings of Maryland Amendment to H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #62 on Agreeing to the Connolly of Virginia Amendment to H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #63 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 50, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 4, 2015, on Roll Call #64 on Passage of H.R. 50--Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #65 on Agreeing to the Schrader of Oregon Amendment to H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #66 on Agreeing to the Jackson-Lee of Texas Amendment to H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #67 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 527, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On February 5, 2015, on Roll Call #68 on Passage of H.R. 527--Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, 2015, on Roll Call #46 on H. Res. 48, Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 351) to provide for expedited approval of exportation of natural gas, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 27, 2015, on Roll Call #47 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 469--Strengthening Child Welfare Response to Trafficking Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 27, 2015, on Roll Call #48 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 246--To improve the response to victims of child sex trafficking, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 28, 2015, on Roll Call #49 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 351, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 28, 2015, on Roll Call #50 on Passage of H.R. 351--LNG Permitting Certainty and Transparency Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted

Mr. Speaker, on January 21, 2015, on Roll Call #38 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 38, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 21, 2015, on Roll Call #39 on H. Res. 38, Providing for consideration of H.R. 161, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act; and providing for consideration of H.R. 36, the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 21, 2015, on Roll Call #40 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 161, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 21, 2015, on Roll Call #41 on Passage of H.R. 161--Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 22, 2015, on Roll Call #42 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 42, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 22, 2015, on Roll Call #43 on H. Res. 42, Providing for consideration of H.R. 7, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 22, 2015, on Roll Call #44 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 7, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 22, 2015, on Roll Call #45 on Passage of H.R. 7--No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

Mr. Speaker, on January 6, 2015, on Roll Call #2 on the question of the Election of the Speaker, I am not recorded due to weather-related flight delays. Had I been present, I would have nominated Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House.

Mr. Speaker, on January 12, 2015, on Roll Call #17 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 203--Clay Hunt SAV Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 12, 2015, on Roll Call #18 on the Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass H.R. 33--Protecting Volunteer Firefighters and Emergency Responders Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #20 on Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 27, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #21 on H. Res. 27, Providing for consideration of H.R. 37, the Promoting Job Creation and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act; H.R. 185, the Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015; and H.R. 240, Making appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2015, and for other purposes, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #23 on Agreeing to the McKinley of West Virginia Amendment to H.R. 185, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #24 on Agreeing to the Johnson of Georgia Amendment to H.R. 185, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #25 on Agreeing to the Jackson Lee of Texas Amendment to H.R. 185, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #26 on Agreeing to the Connolly of Virginia Amendment to H.R. 185, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #27 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit H.R. 185, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 13, 2015, on Roll Call #28 on Passage of H.R. 185-- Regulatory Accountability Act of 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #29 on Agreeing to the Aderholt of Alabama Amendment to H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #30 on Agreeing to the Blackburn of Tennessee Amendment to H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #31 on Agreeing to the DeSantis of Florida Amendment to H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #32 on Agreeing to Salmon of Arizona Amendment to H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #33 on Agreeing to the Schock of Illinois Amendment to H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #34 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit of H.R. 240, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #35 on Passage of H.R. 240-- Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2015, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted NAY.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #36 on the Democratic Motion to Recommit of H.R. 37, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted YEA.

On January 14, 2015, on Roll Call #37 on Passage of H.R. 37-- Promoting Job Creation

and Reducing Small Business Burdens Act, I am not recorded because I was absent for medical reasons. Had I been present, I would have voted