I suggest the absence of a quorum. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Madam President, good morning to our pages and members of our staff, some of whom have been up all night. I just…
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Madam President, good morning to our pages and members of our staff, some of whom have been up all night.
I just walked over here from my office in the Hart Building and, along the way, I ran into the Capitol Police and others who are putting in a long day and a long night. I, on behalf of all of us, want to express my thanks to them.
I have said this on several occasions--that I take no joy in going through a chapter like we are going through tonight.
I come from a State on the east coast where we get along pretty well. Democrats and Republicans sort of like each other. They tend to be mainstream, both on the Democratic side and on the Republican side. We have something called the Delaware way, and it is sort of based on the three C's--communicate, compromise, and collaborate. This is what we do. We have done it for a long time, and it seems to work for us. Hopefully, when we get through this chapter--when we get through the nomination process--we will be able to get back to the three C's.
I have the privilege, as the Presiding Officer knows, that when I got out of the Navy I moved to Delaware, and I had an opportunity to serve in a couple of different roles--as the treasurer, as a Congressman, and then as the Governor for 8 years. In my time as Governor, according to laws and the constitution of Delaware, the Governor nominates people to serve as cabinet members, as members of the judiciary, and on a lot of boards and commissions.
During those 8 years that I was privileged to serve as Governor, the legislature was split--the House was Republican, and the Senate was Democrat. When it came time to nominate members of my cabinet, my predecessor was Governor Mike Castle, as the Senator from Rhode Island knows. He was a moderate Republican, and he had been our Governor, and before that our Lieutenant Governor. He was a State legislator and a very successful attorney. When I was elected Governor, he was elected Congressman. So we literally traded places. He took my job in Congress, in the House, and I took his job as Governor.
It was really a wonderful transition, where I tried to help him make that transition to be successful in the House of Representatives, and he tried very much to help me be successful as a new Governor.
I, actually, went to something called the New Governor's School, hosted by Roy Romer, who was then the chairman of the National Governors Association--a wonderful guy. We were in the New Governor's School out in Colorado, the newly elected Governors of 1992--Democrats and Republicans, including people like George W. Bush, Tom Ridge, and the list goes on. If I had had more sleep, I could remember every one of them. It was just wonderful. Mike Levin, who later became the head of the EPA, was one of them.
We learned a lot at the New Governor's School about how to set up and establish an administration, how to put together an administration. Mike Castle, Delaware's Governor, was part of the faculty, if you will, of current Governors who mentored us in the New Governor's School, and it was a blessing in my life.
I asked Governor Castle, as we were going through that transition, to sort of walk me through his own cabinet and to suggest who might want to stay, who might be interested in staying on in a new administration--in my administration--and who, maybe, who would not. It ended up, when I nominated people to serve in my cabinet, that there were several there who had actually served in his. We had mostly Democrats. I am a Democrat. But there were some Republicans as well. Below the cabinet level, we had division directors, and we kept almost all--not all but almost all of the division directors we asked to stay, too.
For 8 years as Governor of Delaware, I would nominate people to serve in either cabinet positions or on the judiciary or at other posts; but, for 8 years, we batted 1,000. The State executive committee was terrific in approving people, confirming people to serve in these roles. It was not like I just rushed things--here is who we are nominating. Go pass them.
That is not the way they worked. I asked them for their ideas. We solicited their ideas, not just for the cabinet but, also, for the judiciary.
At the end of the day, it was my role to actually nominate people, and it was their role to provide advice and consent, and they did--a little bit before but, certainly, throughout the nominating process. It worked pretty well. It worked pretty well for our State, and I am proud of the 8 years that our administration worked with the legislature and with nonprofit communities, the faith community, and the business community with what we accomplished.
I was trained as a leader from the age of 12, and our Presiding Officer was trained as a leader, probably, from about the same age. We both served in the military. She is a retired lieutenant colonel, and I am a retired Navy captain. But I was trained that leaders
are humble, not haughty. I was trained that leaders should have the hearts of servants, as our job is to serve and not be served. I was trained that we basically call on people not to do what we say but to do what we do. I believe in leadership by example. I was taught that leaders don't hold their fingers up to the wind and see which way the wind is going, but that we should have the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. I was trained that leaders do not lead by dividing folks but by uniting people--by building bridges, not walls. I was trained that leaders should be purveyors of hope--that we should appeal to people's better angels. I was trained that leaders ought to focus on doing what is right, not what is easy or expedient, that we should embrace the Golden Rule-- really, embody the Golden Rule--by treating people the way we want to be treated, that we should focus on excellence in everything we do and surround ourselves with the best people we can find. When the team that we lead does well, they get the credit, and when the team that we lead does not do so well, the leader takes the blame. I was trained as a leader with the idea that, when you know you are right, be sure you are right. You just never give up. You never give up.
Those are the leadership skills that were infused into me by my family and my faith. I was in the military for 23 years, plus 4 years as a midshipman, and it helped make me who I am. Those are, really, the leadership blocks that I bring to my job here.
We have had some great leaders in this body. We could use a leadership like I have just described at the top of the food chain in this country, in this administration. We could use that. I, thus far, after about one month into this administration, I haven't seen that kind of leadership that I had hoped for, that we had seen not that long ago.
I want to commend everyone who has come to the floor in the last almost 20 hours on our side--the Democratic side--and on the Republican side to explain our points of view with respect to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be Administrator for the EPA in this country.
When Donald Trump was running for President, he said pretty consistently that part of what he wanted to do as President was to degrade and, essentially, destroy the Environmental Protection Agency. He didn't just say it once or twice but again and again. When he won the nomination, he said the same thing--that, if elected President, part of his goal would be to degrade and, essentially, destroy the Environmental Protection Agency. When he was elected President--a couple of days after being elected--he repeated that pledge.
Sometimes people may not believe what we say, but they will believe what we do. For me, the first clear indication that what he said with respect to the Environmental Protection Agency was something that he intended to do was the selection of a person to lead the Environmental Protection Agency, and he chose the attorney general of Oklahoma Scott Pruitt.
Scott was introduced at his confirmation hearing before the Environment and Public Works Committee by the two Senators from Oklahoma--James Lankford, with whom I serve on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--he is a great member--and Jim Inhofe, who is our senior Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee.
They have very high regard for Scott Pruitt. They have spoken here on the floor with regard to him and to his service. When someone whose service and friendship I value as much as I do--James Lankford and Jim Inhofe--speak so highly of a friend and a colleague from their State, it is not easy for me, and it is not easy for the rest of us to oppose that nominee--their friend. But we have done that. We have done that for weeks now, and we have done that now throughout this night.
I take no joy in doing this. Having said that, I take no joy in the fact that the levels of the seas around my little State of Delaware are rising, and we are the lowest lying State in America, and we see every day the vestiges of sea level rise.
I take no joy when I catch the train in the morning to come down here--I go back and forth every day--I take no joy in standing on the platform at the Wilmington train station and in looking at a beautiful riverfront, which we have worked on for 20 years so as to transform an industrial wasteland into something that is lovely, beautiful, and clean. Even now, with the fish that swim in the Christina River, we cannot eat them. In fact, from most of the bodies of water in my State, we cannot eat the fish, and that is because of the mercury that is contained in them. It is not just in my State, and it is not just in our neighbors' States--Maryland and New Jersey. It is in the States all up and down the east coast.
We live in what is called the end of America's tailpipe. A lot of emissions that are put up into the air come from coal-fired plants to our west--from Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, West Virginia, which is my native State, and other States. They have, in many cases, really tall smokestacks, and they put their pollution--their air emissions--up through the smokestacks. They go up hundreds and hundreds of feet into the air. The air carries them out of their States. It carries the pollution out of their States, and where does it settle? It settles in ours. In States from Virginia on up into Maine. We live at the end of America's tailpipe.
I take no joy that, of the freshwater fish in our State and a lot of other places on the east coast and, frankly, in other places around the country, you cannot eat those fish anymore.
I want to take a few minutes and pivot from that as background to what we are going to look at--some charts--in a minute. Before we do, I want to talk about why we can't eat the fish in too many places around this country. And the reason why is because we get, I would say about 40 percent of our electricity from coal. Today it is maybe down to around 30, maybe 25 to 30 percent, and maybe 25 to 30 percent from natural gas. We get maybe 20 percent from nuclear, and the rest is from the renewable forms of energy, including wind and solar technology as it has gotten better and better and better.
One of the reasons my colleagues, particularly on this side, have great concerns about the nomination of Scott Pruitt has to do with mercury. As I have shared with the Senate, a review of Mr. Pruitt's record yields some troubling information about how he managed the unit within his own office in Oklahoma charged with responding to environmental matters. Upon taking office, Mr. Pruitt essentially gutted his own Environmental Protection Unit within the attorney general's office. It appears he abandoned his responsibilities to use his office to protect the public health of Oklahomans and declined to use his authority to hold polluters and bad actors accountable.
A review of Mr. Pruitt's record yields nothing that shows how he will change this behavior if he is confirmed to be EPA Administrator. In fact, the New York Times reported earlier this month, on February 5, that Mr. Pruitt is drawing up plans to move forward on the President's campaign promise to ``get rid of'' the EPA.
Just remember, the EPA does not just involve clean air and clean water and the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. The implementation of the Toxic Substances Control Act deals with hazardous materials and the products we use every day. The Environmental Protection Agency is a huge player in the public health of our country for not just adults like us but for young people like these pages, like my children, our grandchildren--all of us--our parents, grandparents. The EPA is in large part responsible for our being a healthier nation.
I am a big believer in going after root causes for illness and sickness, and if you have mercury in your fish, if you have bad stuff in your air, it degrades your health, and that is a big problem. It is a big problem for us in Delaware because we spend a whole lot of money. Ninety percent of the air pollution in my State doesn't come from Delaware. It isn't generated in Delaware. It is bad stuff. It is air emissions that come from other States. They are able to burn coal, get cheap electricity, and because they put stuff in the air in tall smokestacks, they send it over to us. They end up with cheap electricity, lower healthcare costs, and we end up with having to clean up our emissions dramatically, more so than we otherwise would. It is expensive. So we end
up with expensive electricity and also healthcare costs that are higher than the places where the pollution is coming from. That is just not right.
I said earlier that I get no joy from going through this nomination battle for Mr. Pruitt with my friends on the other side, but believe me I get no joy from the idea that we end up with expensive electricity in my State and higher health costs because other people in other parts of our country don't embrace the Golden Rule, to treat other people the way you want to be treated.
Going back to the New York Times article on February 5 that indicated that Mr. Pruitt is drawing up plans to move forward on the President's campaign promise to get rid of the EPA, they had these landing teams in the course of the transition to go through each of the agencies. The person who apparently was leading the administration's landing team into the EPA called for reducing the head count at EPA. They didn't say we are going to have a hiring freeze at the EPA. They didn't say we are going to have a 1- or 2- or 3-percent reduction. They didn't say we were going to reduce it by 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 percent. They said we are going to reduce the head count at the Environmental Protection Agency by two-thirds.
I guess it is possible that whoever this person is that heads up the landing team of the EPA, maybe they don't have pollution in their State. Maybe the air is pristine, and they can get all the fish they want from all the other rivers, lakes, and streams. They don't have to worry about toxic waste sites or any of that stuff. I doubt it.
I think part of our job is to make sure the EPA can do their job better, but the kind of draconian changes President Trump has talked about--and when you look at the record of the fellow they nominated to lead the EPA, you get the feeling that maybe they are not just talking.
There is an old saying that sometimes people may not believe what we say, they believe what we do so let's just take a look to see what Mr. Pruitt has done in his own State of Oklahoma. I would say there are two sides to every story, and we are hearing two sides to every story. What I am going to do here is just draw on his own words.
The New York Times story goes on to say that Mr. Pruitt ``has a blueprint to repeal climate change rules, cut staffing levels, close regional offices and permanently weaken the agency's regulatory authority.''
It continues:
As much as anyone, Mr. Pruitt knows the legal intricacies
of environmental regulation--and deregulation. As Oklahoma's
attorney general over the last six years, he has led or taken
part in 14 lawsuits against the EPA.
His changes may not have the dramatic flair favored by Mr.
Trump, but they could weaken the agency's authority even long
after Mr. Trump has left office.
And how will he achieve this objective of weakening the Agency's authority? First, by diminishing the scientific basis by which the Agency makes decisions.
Mr. Pruitt does not seem to value or understand the science that is at the core of this Agency's actions to protect public health or the important role EPA plays ensuring all States are doing their fair share so every American can breathe clean air and drink clean water.
One area where his propensity to disregard science is especially evident is Mr. Pruitt's extreme views on mercury and other air toxic pollution from electric powerplants.
Much of our country's ongoing efforts to clean up air pollution hinges on every State playing by the rules and doing their fair share to reduce air pollution because the pollution generated in one State does not just stay in that State. The air carries it across State borders. Streams and rivers carry it across State borders as well.
As I said earlier, in my home State of Delaware, we have made real strides in cleaning up our own air pollution that we generate. Unfortunately, the other States to the west of us have not made the same kind of commitment.
As I said a few minutes ago, over 90 percent of Delaware's air pollution comes from our neighboring States. The air pollution is not only a danger to our hearts and lungs and brains, it also costs a lot in doctor bills and hospital bills and in our quality of life.
Not all, but some of this pollution is toxic. It comes across our borders. These toxins that are in the air get in the food we eat as well as the air we breathe and build up in our bodies without our knowledge. Those buildups can lead to cancer, mental impairment and, in some cases, even to death.
Delawareans depend on the EPA to ensure that our neighbors do their fair share so we can protect our citizens. It hasn't always moved as quickly as we would have liked, but without the EPA, our State of Delaware wouldn't have many other options at our disposal.
Mr. Pruitt, however, seems to have spent a good part of his career fighting to dismantle the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. In my State, our neighboring States, those of us who live especially at the end of America's tailpipe depend on it for cleaner air and cleaner water.
I have a poster here. Here is a fish, not one we would want to eat. The poster says: ``Why isn't Scott Pruitt convinced?'' The scientists and doctors tell us that mercury is a harmful toxin.
Mr. Pruitt has been a part of multiple lawsuits against the Federal environmental protections--protections that are offered by EPA. Many of these lawsuits again are against clean air protections. He has fought against a rule to reduce mercury and other air-toxic pollution in this country three separate times.
In 1990, Congress had enough scientific information to list mercury, as well as 188 other air toxics, such as lead and arsenic, as hazardous air pollutants in the Clean Air Act.
Lawmakers at the time, including me, serving in the House of Representatives, thought this action would ensure our largest emitters of mercury and air toxins would soon be required to clean up. Unfortunately, it took 22 years for the EPA to issue the mercury and air toxic rule, which reduced mercury and other air toxins from coal- fired powerplants, our largest source of mercury emissions in this country.
The EPA modeled this rule after what was being done in the States and required coal plants to install existing affordable technology that could reduce mercury and toxic emissions by 90 percent. The reason the EPA ended up having to go through all these processes over all these years in issuing this regulation is because Congress did not act in passing legislation, which we should have done. We could have, and we tried--a bipartisan effort--Lamar Alexander, a wonderful Senator from Tennessee, and myself, and others sought to get it done, and we were unable to get it done legislatively. We were opposed by the utilities, and in the end, the EPA said enough and we are going to issue this rule.
But for a lawmaker who supported the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and as someone who represents a downwind State, this rule is a long time in coming. You would not know this from the claims in these lawsuits, but since 1990, medical professionals and scientists have learned quite a bit about the environmental and health impacts of mercury.
The mercury emitted into the air deposits into our water. It then builds up in our lakes and rivers and streams and eventually makes its way into our food supply, through fish and fowl that we eat.
Children are most at risk, as many of us know. Pregnant mothers who eat the mercury-laden fish can transfer unhealthy doses to their unborn children, impacting neurological development of their babies.
Prior to EPA's mercury rule, the Centers for Disease Control estimated that 600,000 newborns were at risk a year from mercury poisoning--600,000.
In 2012, Dr. Jerome Paulson, from the American Academy of Pediatrics, testified before our EPW Committee, stating that ``there is no evidence demonstrating a safe level of mercury exposure.''
Dr. Jerome Paulson, American Academy of Pediatrics, testified before our committee in 2012. Again, he said: ``There is no evidence demonstrating a safe level of mercury exposure.''
Our Nation's most reputable pediatric organization, dedicated to the health and well-being of our children, has made clear that medical research shows there is no safe level of mercury exposure for our children--none.
Mr. Pruitt has come to his own conclusions about mercury.
The 2012 lawsuit that Mr. Pruitt joined with coal companies against the mercury and air toxics rule stated--this is what the lawsuit said: ``The record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury hazardous air pollutant metals, and acid gas hazardous air pollutants pose public health hazards.''
I have to read that again. In the 2012 lawsuit in which Mr. Pruitt joined with coal companies against the mercury and air toxics rule, which was like 20 years in the making, finally adopted because Congress refused to act, said these words: ``The record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury hazardous air pollutant metals, and acid gas hazardous air pollutants pose public health hazards.''
This is not the first time Mr. Pruitt contradicted the medical and scientific community on mercury and the threats it poses to public health.
As I said, EPA took 22 years to get the coal plants to clean up the mercury emissions. Every year that our country delayed the cleanup of the emissions, more and more mercury settled and accumulated in our rivers, streams, lakes, and fish.
I don't know how many lakes they have in Oklahoma, but I know that in 2010, there were fewer than 20 on which there were issued fish consumption advisories because of mercury. I know last year that number more than doubled.
Every State, including Oklahoma, has fish consumption advisories because of mercury. As we see here, the number under Mr. Pruitt's watch has seen the mercury-caused fish advisories to actually more than double in the last 6 years.
In 2012, Dr. Charles Driscoll from Syracuse University--one of the leading mercury scientists in the world--testified before our committee. Dr. Driscoll told us that because of the long-term emissions of mercury from coal plants, there are--his words--``hotspots and whole regions, such as the Adirondacks, the Great Lakes region of the Midwest and large portions of the Southeast, where the fish is contaminated with mercury.''
He went on to say: ``There are more fish consumption advisories in the U.S. for mercury than all contaminants combined.''
Instead of agreeing with leading scientists on this issue, Mr. Pruitt has come to a different conclusion.
I think we have a poster that speaks to this.
Mr. Pruitt's 2012 lawsuit with the coal companies against EPA's mercury protection stated:
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.
Mr. Pruitt argued that, despite the fact that every State has at least one mercury fish consumption advisory and despite there being 40 lakes in his own State of Oklahoma now that have mercury fish advisories, we shouldn't worry about mercury pollution from our country's largest source of emissions. That denial of facts makes no sense. Luckily, the courts rejected Mr. Pruitt's arguments that the mercury and air toxic rules should be vacated. Four years later, most coal plants are meeting the new standards, and we are already seeing the benefits.
Just a few weeks ago, some of my Environment and Public Works colleagues and I heard from Dr. Lynn Goldman, a pediatrician and former EPA Assistant Administrator for Toxic Substances, about this very issue when she said: ``U.S. efforts to reduce mercury emissions, including from power plants, are benefiting public health faster than could have been predicted in 1990.''
Great news. Dr. Goldman's comments stand in stark contrast to the ones made in Mr. Pruitt's latest mercury lawsuit, filed just 2 months before his confirmation hearing. In this most recent lawsuit, Mr. Pruitt argued that the benefits of cleaning powerplant mercury emissions are ``too speculative'' and--again, his words--``not supported by the scientific literature.'' Really? The lawsuit goes on to conclude that it is not ``appropriate and necessary'' for the EPA to regulate mercury and other air toxic emissions.
So Mr. Pruitt argued just 3 months ago that it is not appropriate or necessary for the EPA to regulate the largest source of mercury pollution--a pollutant that we know damages children's brains and could impact up to 600,000 newborns every year. Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt listened to the industry instead of listening to our Nation's pediatricians when determining what is good for our children's health. Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt sided with coal companies instead of our leading scientists. Just 3 months ago, Mr. Pruitt argued that States should be on their own when it comes to dealing with toxic pollution that crosses State borders.
In Mr. Pruitt's confirmation hearing, I asked about these lawsuits and his views on regulating mercury and air toxics from powerplants. He was evasive and misleading, I believe, in his answers and claimed his lawsuits were merely about process. Process.
Well, let's be perfectly clear. Mr. Pruitt's lawsuits are trying to undermine a rule that protects the health of our children and our grandchildren. His extreme views on mercury pollution clearly show Mr. Pruitt believes that Americans have to make a choice between having a strong economy and a safe, clean environment. I think this is a false choice. We can have both, and indeed we must have both.
His extreme views on mercury pollution also show that Mr. Pruitt will side with polluters over science and doctors--maybe not every time, but way too often.
Americans deserve an EPA Administrator who believes in sound science and who will listen to the medical experts when it comes to our health and be able to strike a balance between a strong environment and a strong economy. I don't believe Mr. Pruitt will be such an Administrator, which is why I am asking my colleagues to join me in voting against his confirmation.
I see we have been joined on the floor by the Senator from Indiana. I am prepared to hit the pause button for a few minutes and welcome my friend. I welcome him and thank him for his commitment, not just to the people of Indiana but to our country and embracing the Golden Rule, the idea that we have to look out for each other.
I yield the floor.
Madam President, I thank my friend for those kind and generous remarks. I thank him for coming to Delaware. I have been privileged to visit the Hoosier State any number of times. I have a basketball in my office from Notre Dame, and I know our friend from Indiana is a huge Notre Dame fan. Their basketball coach, Mike Brey, is the former basketball coach of the University of Delaware. Just like air pollution and water pollution can move across borders, so can head coaches of great basketball teams.
Tomorrow night, God willing, I will be at the Bob Carpenter Center at the University of Delaware to watch the University of Delaware's men's basketball team play. Our new head coach is one of Mike Brey's assistants who has come to our State to head us up. We look forward to seeing how he and our Fightin' Blue Hens do.
I thank the Senator for sharing--a whole lot less air pollution-- after stealing our basketball coach, a very good replacement; I guess not the player to be named later but the coach to be named later.
Madam President, one of the things I love about the Senator from Indiana is he understands there is a Golden Rule. We are one another's neighbors, and we need to treat others the way we want to be treated. States need to treat other States the way they would want to be treated.
He also understands a very valuable principle: that it is actually possible to have cleaner air, cleaner water, and strengthen our economy.
When I was an undergrad at Ohio State, a midshipman there, I remember a time up north of us in Cleveland, OH, when the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. The kind of smog we have now in parts of the country, running in places in California, when I was stationed in California in the Navy for a while--there are days when I ran that I knew I wasn't doing a good thing for my lungs.
We have done a lot better than that. While we cleaned up rivers like the Cuyahoga River and we cleaned up the air in a lot of places in the country, we still have work to do. We have made those changes and those improvements and developed technology that we have been able to sell all over the world. That is a good thing.
I thank my friend for getting up at this hour of the day and joining us here and for his leadership, not just in Indiana but here in the Senate. It has been a joy. Thank you.
I want to go back to what I was talking about earlier--Scott Pruitt's views. I think they are extreme, uninformed views on mercury regulation. Mr. Pruitt's views on core clean air and clean water laws and the somewhat misleading and oftentimes evasive answers he has given to Members of this body, including myself, ought to be reason enough for Members of this body to reject his nomination.
Two months prior to his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt filed his third major legal action against the EPA's mercury and air toxics rule. This case is still pending before the courts.
For those who don't know the EPA's mercury and air toxics rule, it requires our Nation's largest source of mercury pollution--coal-fired plants--to reduce mercury in a wider range of air toxins.
The EPA issued this rule in 2012, and because of the low cost of compliance, most utilities are already meeting the standards. We made more progress at a faster time, at a lower cost than was actually anticipated. The same thing is true with the elimination of acid rain in New England. The deal that was worked out was a cap-and-trade approach, but the idea was developed when George Herbert Walker Bush was President. We ended up with better results for less money and faster time than was anticipated. We can do this.
Mr. Pruitt filed his latest lawsuit alongside with one of the Nation's largest coal companies, Murray Energy Corporation, arguing that the benefits of cleaning up powerplant and mercury and air toxic emissions are ``too speculative'' and not necessary.
Mr. Pruitt goes on to argue that there are only ``hypothetically exposed persons'' from mercury and air toxic emissions from powerplants. Imagine that--``hypothetically exposed persons.'' Again, I would say: Really?
Finally, Mr. Pruitt argues: ``The EPA cannot properly conclude it is appropriate and necessary to regulate hazardous air pollutants under Section 112.''
His boiled-down arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit is basically this: If the EPA cannot quantify benefits in dollars, then those benefits don't count. Never mind that we know the real-world health threats to people this kind of air pollution poses.
The idea of looking at public health protection only through the lens of dollars and cents is not a new one, but it can be a dangerous one. The tools we have for projecting costs and putting a dollar value on the health benefits are not gospel and are not the only way of analyzing the economic impacts of reducing pollution on a community. With toxic substances, such as lead, arsenic, and mercury, health benefits are sometimes difficult to quantify.
Meanwhile, the EPA is chock-full of examples where benefits are underestimated and costs overestimated once programs are implemented and businesses find efficient ways of cutting pollution. In my part of the country, we call that Yankee intuition.
Mr. Pruitt's argument ignores that it is difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the loss of IQ, increased risk of cancer, or other long-term health effects known to occur when exposed to mercury and air toxic emissions.
In Mr. Pruitt's world, if we can't accurately translate loss of IQ into dollars lost, the benefits of cleaning up mercury for other children is ``too speculative'' for it to be ``necessary and appropriate'' for EPA to act. As a father of three sons, I find this way of thinking alarming.
I have a poster here with a message from a woman in Wilmington, DE. Wilmington is in the northern part of the State, where our congressional delegation and Governor and his family live.
This is from Sarah. I would ask Mr. Pruitt this: How much does it cost to lose an organ like I have, to lose a parent or child from cancer? How much do sick days and inhalers cost? Families are struggling to make ends meet. Many of these costs are not in dollars alone.
Thank you, Sarah.
Sarah is a mother and a registered nurse. She wrote to me earlier this month to express her concerns regarding Mr. Pruitt's nomination. In her letter, she explained to me that she was born in 1978, in Western New York State. It is miles away from the Love Canal neighborhood. It is the site of one of the most appalling environmental disasters in American history.
For those who don't know or don't recall, Love Canal was a planned community that eventually had to be evacuated after 22,000 barrels of toxic waste were dumped into the nearby canal--22,000 barrels. Families whose homes were contaminated with chemicals and toxic waste had to leave. Many faced serious health challenges later in their lives. These were the real threats we faced before we had the EPA or laws on the books that held polluters accountable for dumping hazardous chemicals in our waters.
Sarah's mother was pregnant with her while Love Canal was being evacuated, just 7 miles away from their home. Fast forward a few decades. When Sarah was 30, she found out that she had thyroid cancer. Doctors told her that exposure to radiation, perhaps from the radioactive hotspots near her hometown, is a proven risk factor for thyroid cancer.
Sarah now has a daughter of her own who, unfortunately, suffers from reactive airway disease that causes her trouble breathing, and symptoms can last anywhere from a few minutes to hours at a time.
Sarah, in her letter, said to me:
Mr. Pruitt believes that the EPA places economic hardships
on businesses through unnecessary regulation. True economic
hardship is experienced by those who are often least
protected by environmental laws.
She went on to say:
I would ask Mr. Pruitt: How much does it ``cost'' to lose
an organ like I have? To lose a parent or child to cancer?
How much do sick days and inhalers cost families already
struggling to make ends meet? What is the life path of a
person who starts out with compromised lungs? Many of these
costs are not in dollars alone.
Sarah couldn't be more right. An EPA Administrator must be able to understand the true human cost of rolling back or eliminating critical environmental regulations.
Mr. Pruitt's persistent and extreme views--or at least extreme views in my mind--on the mercury and air toxics rule are some of the reasons I have grave concerns about his nomination to be EPA Administrator.
I can't help but wonder if Mr. Pruitt will continue to fight this rule--not from outside the Agency, but from inside the Agency.
I wonder if Mr. Pruitt would uphold the clean air protection that has bipartisan support or if he would kill the rule and take his extreme views of cost-benefit analysis broader, to other issues such as cleaning up lead in our water or addressing climate change.
That is why I asked him not once, not twice, but three times about his views on the mercury and air toxics rule. I asked him directly three times if EPA should move forward with the rule and if EPA should be regulating mercury and air toxic emissions from powerplants. Each time I asked, the more evasive and misleading the answers became.
In our three exchanges, I was very clear that I was asking about EPA's regulations and the authority to address mercury emissions from powerplants.
However, in Mr. Pruitt's answers, he was very careful to mention that mercury pollution should be regulated under the Clean Air Act but never said that mercury and other air toxic emissions from powerplants should be or must be regulated.
Mercury, as it turns out, is emitted by many sources. Coal-fired powerplants happen to be the largest emitter in this country. Under section 112 of the Clean Air Act, Congress listed mercury as a hazardous air pollutant and required the EPA to regulate all major emissions sources.
It seems that Mr. Pruitt tried to avoid the questions I asked him about controlling mercury and air toxic powerplant emissions. He, instead, answered about regulating mercury more broadly.
While he was trying to evade the questions, what he did say was very misleading to the committee.
In our second exchange, I mentioned his three lawsuits against the mercury and air toxics rule. I asked Mr. Pruitt if he believed the EPA should not move forward with this rule and, if there were no rule, how would States clean up mercury?
Mr. Pruitt answered: ``I actually have not stated that I believe the EPA should not move forward on regulating mercury or adopting rulemaking in that regard.''
He went on to say: ``There is not a statement--or belief--that I have that mercury is something that shouldn't be regulated under Section 112 as a Hazardous Air Pollutant.''
Well, anyone who supports the mercury and air toxics rule and heard that might be very encouraged by these comments.
Sadly, Mr. Pruitt is on record many times stating that the EPA should not move forward regulating mercury and air toxic powerplant emissions.
Here are a few quotes from the legal briefs that Mr. Pruitt filed in his many lawsuits against this rule that directly contradict his statements in our hearing.
In his first lawsuit against the mercury and air toxics rule, called White Stallion v. EPA, Mr. Pruitt argued: ``Finally, the record does not support EPA's findings that mercury, non-mercury Hazardous Air Pollutant metals, and acid gas Hazardous Air Pollutants pose public health hazards.''
In his most recent case with Murray Energy, he argues that, with respect to powerplant mercury emissions, the ``EPA cannot properly conclude that it is appropriate and necessary to regulate Hazardous Air Pollutants under Section 112.''
These statements go well beyond questioning the ``process.'' Instead, they suggest the EPA should not be regulating mercury and toxic air emissions from powerplants.
This is not what even Trump voters voted for in November. They did not go to the polls hoping that the new President would make their air dirtier or their water more polluted.
This is another case of this nominee trying to mislead, or at least obscure, the truth before Congress. It is a troublesome pattern that I fear will only get worse if Mr. Pruitt is confirmed as EPA Administrator.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Mr. President, I want to continue to share with you and my colleagues the reasons I am opposed to the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
What we do know about Mr. Pruitt's past record--and there is still a good deal we don't know and are not able to learn in committee. We know Mr. Pruitt abandoned his responsibilities to
protect Oklahomans from harmful pollution. Instead of holding polluters and bad actors in the State accountable, Mr. Pruitt spent a lot of his time as attorney general in Oklahoma suing the Environmental Protection Agency.
These days, going after the EPA public health protection seems like a popular thing to do. In fact, the EPA is often a target of nasty tweets from our current President.
Without the burning rivers or thick smog and soot in the air, which used to be all too common, some may presume that there is not much more for the EPA to do to protect the public health of our country from pollution. People may presume that our environmental protection problems are behind us, and States can take care of themselves when it comes to clean air and clean water, as Mr. Pruitt has suggested time and again.
I am a recovering Governor, a former Governor for 8 years. I have huge regard for what Governors can do, States can do. There is a lot we can do, but not everything. That is not the idea--that States can simply take care of themselves when it comes to clean air and water, and there is no need for Federal oversight. It is just wrong. I think it is untrue. The EPA continues to play a critical role in protecting our health, especially for the most vulnerable, including the very young and the elderly. The environmental threats we face today are real and do not respect State borders.
One such threat is ozone, known to some as smog pollution. Five times, Mr. Pruitt has sued the EPA over regulations to require new ozone, smog protections. Several of these lawsuits are still pending before the courts.
Mr. Pruitt's actions against ozone health protection are deeply concerning to me, as I represent a State at the end of what many of us on the east coast call America's tailpipe. Emissions come up from the Midwest, largely, and blow from west to east and end up in our air and in our water. Ninety percent of the smog and air pollution in Delaware comes from outside of our State, partly from hundreds of miles away-- places like Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, and across the Midwest.
I said many times as Governor of Delaware that I could have eliminated every source of pollution within my State--shut down the factories, cleared every car off the road, stopped trains and transit or boats. Delaware would still face the deadly doses of air pollution, not from our own emissions, but from those blowing in our State from hundreds of miles away.
We have a chart here to my left that we call the Ozone Report Card. Ozone is smog pollution. It deals not with quality of air pollution in Delaware, but it is a report card for Oklahoma. Cross-state ozone air pollution continues to be a major problem for our State, but it also is for many States across the country.
In Mr. Pruitt's own home State of Oklahoma, every county with an air quality monitor--16 counties; they have more than 16 counties, but 16 have air quality monitors--has an unhealthy level of ozone pollution, according to the American Lung Association. The American Lung Association assigns grades in subjects, just as for our pages here in school. My home State has A's and B's. The Oklahoma Lung Association assigns a grade for ozone pollution. In these 16 counties, they assigned a grade of F, not just in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 or 10--all 16.
For decades, we have known that air pollution is linked to serious health problems like asthma attacks, strokes, heart attacks, and other respiratory illnesses. Most recently, ozone has been linked to early deaths.
We have another chart that refers to Oklahoma's asthma rate. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 6.3 million children in this country have been diagnosed with asthma--6.3 million children diagnosed with asthma. In Mr. Pruitt's home State of Oklahoma, 1 in 10 children have asthma, which is higher than the national average. That is 6.3 million children nationwide, and more than 112,000 in Oklahoma who have to worry, during the high ozone days, if they are going to have an asthma attack.
Recognizing the very real dangers of ozone pollution, Congress passed the EPA to provide our country with the ozone air quality standards based on the best science available, and they review that standard every 5 years. After reviewing more than 1,000 medical and scientific studies, the EPA concluded about 2 years ago, in 2015, that the 2008 ozone health standard was too weak and no longer adequately protected public health.
The EPA's 2015 rule was purely a statement of fact to protect our health. To protect the 6.3 million children with asthma, we need less ozone pollution in our air. To protect 112,000 children with asthma in Oklahoma, we need a stronger air quality standard.
Fortunately, many of today's biggest emitters of ozone pollution, such as older coal plants, are already scheduled to be cleaned up. This means the costs of compliance are not as high as they might have been 2, 4, or 6 years ago.
As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt had a choice between two paths. If he had taken the first path, Mr. Pruitt could have worked with his Department of Environmental Quality and the business community to ensure ozone polluters in his own State cleaned up. He could have worked with the EPA, not against it. By doing so, he would have protected Oklahomans and citizens living in downwind States from ozone pollution and helped economic growth and the State at the same time. It is important to note that many attorneys general in this country decided to take this path, including our own attorney general, Matt Denn, in Delaware.
Instead, Mr. Pruitt took a second path, the one that led to suing the Agency, the EPA, in an attempt to weaken protections. It is no surprise that Mr. Pruitt chose to sue the EPA, based on his clear record.
I have a poster here with some of his own words. After all, it was Mr. Pruitt who just last summer explicitly said it bothers him that Congress and the EPA work together to ensure Americans have clean air to breathe--or appears to say that. Specifically, here is what he said:
Legislation should not be ``we like clean air, so go make
clean air.'' That's something that bothers me, that then
Congress gives to EPA this general grant of authority.
That was at Hillsdale College in July of 2016. I would just ask, What then does Mr. Pruitt think the role of EPA is? It is hardly some kind of extreme overreach to keep deadly pollutants out of the air we breathe. I think most people think that. Mr. Pruitt chose to sue the EPA over the science used to justify in writing the regulations, citing the polluters over the medical and scientific experts who have published over 1,000 scientific studies that the EPA has reviewed.
Mr. Pruitt did not stop there. He also sued the EPA over protections for downwind States. Delaware is one of them. Let me repeat that. Mr. Pruitt not only sued the EPA over science used in the 2015 ozone rule, but he also sued the EPA over the good neighbor rule to make sure all States do their fair share to clean up the air. Without the good neighbor rule, Delawareans, and all Americans living in downwind States, will be forced to live with the consequences of decisions made by polluters hundreds or thousands of miles from them. Mr. Pruitt took the stance that every citizen in this country does not have the right to breathe clean air. Mr. Pruitt took the stance that the lawyers and polluters know better than scientists and medical experts when it comes to ozone pollution and health.
The President is asking us in this body to confirm Mr. Pruitt as our EPA Administrator. As Senators, we can also choose between two paths. The first path is protecting public health and ensuring that those who elected us have clean air to breathe. The second path is protecting polluters. I will be taking the path that protects the health of my constituents. I urge my colleagues to do the same for theirs.
In just a moment, I am going to pause. Before I do, I mention this good neighbor rule. Some people call it the cross-border rule. The idea behind it is that we ought to treat one another as neighbors.
Where does the good neighbor rule come from? It actually comes from the Bible. And it comes not just from the Bible, it comes from almost every major religion in the world--the idea that we ought to treat other people the way we want to be treated. If you look at every major religion in the world, it pretty much says that.
In the New Testament, some will recall, there is a passage where the Pharisees were after this young Rabbi,
a couple thousand years ago, trying to put Him on the spot. They said: You are so smart, young Rabbi, why don't You tell us what is the greatest rule of law, the greatest commandment of all? He said: Not one, there are two. He mentioned the first. Then He said: The second is love thy neighbor as thyself.
One of the pharisees said to Him: Who is our neighbor? And He went on to tell them the parable of the good Samaritan. A man traveling through the country was attacked, left for dead in a ditch. Later in the day, three people walked by, one from a part of the country where this guy was sort of his neighbor. He walked on by. Next, a person of the cloth, a rabbi, walked on by. He didn't stop. The third guy that came through was from a place called Samaria. They are like at enmity, at odds with one another. They are not friendly; they are at odds with one another.
He saw the fellow had been beaten and left for dead. He ministered to him and put him on his animal and took him to an inn. For a day and a night, he tried to help him get better. After the second day, the guy from Samaria had to leave and had to go someplace else. He said to the innkeeper: This fellow still isn't well enough to travel, but here is some money to help pay for his care here for another day or two. When I come back through, if you need more money or it costs more, I will even up with you. He left, but he left the guy who had been beaten in a lot better shape.
After telling His story, the young Rabbi turned to the pharisee and he said: Who was the good neighbor?
Well, there was the one--the first fellow who came by who took pity on the guy who had been beaten and left for dead and treated him the way he would have wanted to be treated.
That is really the foundation of the good neighbor rule that the EPA has promulgated. It is the foundation of the idea that pollution does cross borders and because of that, we need to have--if we can't pass a law, we need some kind of rule or regulation to ensure that everybody is being a good neighbor because it is not fair that my State--that we can pretty much close down my State's economy, transportation systems, powerplants, and still have a problem with air quality. That is just not fair.
I think next we are going to look at some editorial statements that are in opposition to Mr. Pruitt. I know there are editorial statements that support him. I don't have any of those today, not surprisingly. But I do want to go through a couple from newspapers around the country: New York Times, Bangor News up in Maine, L.A. Times, Denver Post, Chicago Sun Times, Dallas Morning News.
I have received a number of letters from Delawareans about the nomination of Mr. Pruitt to lead the EPA. For the record, as of I guess last night, my office had received a total of seven letters, emails, or faxes supporting Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I guess this is from all sources, not just Delaware. But we have gotten seven letters supporting Mr. Pruitt's nomination. I received 1,880 letters opposing his nomination. That is pretty amazing. We don't get this kind of volume of letters, emails, or faxes, but 1,880 opposed, 7 letters supporting.
But it is not just Delawareans who are worried about the idea of Mr. Pruitt at the helm of EPA; over the past 3 months, editorial boards across our country have expressed their own serious concerns about this nominee as well.
I want to share a few of those with my colleagues and the world this morning. Back in December, the New York Times wrote these words. I will read them. This is from December, a couple of months ago:
Had Donald Trump spent an entire year scouring the country
for someone to weaken clean air and clean water laws and
repudiate America's leadership role in the global battle
against climate change, he could not have found a more
suitable candidate than Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma Attorney
General.
That is a pretty bold charge. The editorial describes Mr. Pruitt's nomination--it goes on to say ``an aggressively bad choice''; ``a poke in the eye to a long history of bipartisan cooperation on environmental issues.''
Again, the EPA was not created in a law signed by a Democrat, it was by a Republican.
The Times goes on to say ``bad choice''; ``a poke in the eye . . . to a nation that has come to depend on an agency for healthy air and drinkable water.''
And to the 195 countries that agreed in Paris last year to reduce their emissions, climate-changing greenhouse gas, in the belief that the United States should show the way, the Times concludes with these words: ``Mr. Pruitt is the wrong person to lead an agency charged with the custody of the nation's environment.''
The Senate cares about public good and needs to send his nomination to the dustbin.
But I know that not everyone is a huge fan of the New York Times these days, so let's move a little further north. Let's go up to Maine. They have a paper up there called the Bangor Daily News. I have a poster from them as well. Last month, the Bangor Daily News Editorial Board wrote these words. Again, this is last month:
As attorney general of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has been openly
hostile to the EPA's mission of protecting human health by
regulating dangerous pollutants, such as mercury and carbon
dioxide. Someone who has repeatedly tried to prevent the EPA
from doing its job surely should be disqualified from
overseeing the agency.
You know, we generally believe that Presidents have wide latitude in choosing the members of their Cabinet. I think Governors should have wide latitude. As a former Governor, I said to our Delaware Legislature: I have been elected; give me the opportunity to put together my own team and judge us on our performance.
However, some nominees of some Presidents are so--probably Democrats and Republicans, but especially in this case, with this President--some nominees are so unqualified or philosophically unfit that Senators should use their constitutional powers to reject them. Scott Pruitt, President Donald Trump's pick to head the EPA, is one of those nominees.
I voted for more of the nominees of this President than against. Several of them are quite good. I serve on a committee called Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. To succeed Secretary Jeh Johnson, the President nominated retired Marine general John Francis Kelly, who was a terrific soldier, marine, leader for our country, and will be a great Secretary. I wish they were all of his caliber. I wish they were.
The Bangor paper went on to write:
Critics of the EPA tend to focus on rules and laws that the
agency is involved in writing that protect little-known
animals or landscapes, such as wetlands. But, the agency's
primary mission is to safeguard the health of Americans
through landmark laws such as Clean Water Act and Clean Air
Act.
Finally at the Bangor paper, they got to what is really at stake with Scott Pruitt at the head of EPA when we have a President who has repeatedly said he would like to get rid of the EPA in almost every forum. This is what they said at the Bangor News:
We are under no illusions that Mr. Trump is suddenly going
to become a champion of environmental protection, even if
that is synonymous with protecting human life. But Pruitt is
so hostile to the EPA's core mission that putting him in
charge would move the United States dangerously backwards.
But it is not just the east coast editorial boards that are worried about Scott Pruitt's nomination. Let's go to the west coast, the L.A. Times in California, the State that has led the way in environmental protection. The L.A. Times Editorial Board wrote--let's see if we have a date. It is February 4, this month. This is what they wrote:
Yes, Trump won the election, and as president, he's
entitled to appoint people who reflect his political views.
But when the president's policies and appointees pose such a
fundamental threat to the nation, even a Senate controlled by
his fellow Republicans--whose first loyalty should be to the
people of the United States--must put the nation's best
interests ahead of party loyalty.
They continue at the L.A. Times and say:
Pruitt wouldn't run the agency as just another small-
government Republican interested in paring excessive
limitations on business. He actually disagrees with the
fundamental mission of the EPA. He has argued that the
federal government should play a lesser role in environmental
protection, and that primary control should be given to the
states.
That is wrongheaded. Putting West Virginia, my native State, in charge of
its coal industry or Texas in charge of its oil industry would lead to horrific environmental damage, not just there but in the neighboring States downwind and downstream, according to the L.A. Times Editorial Board.
The L.A. Times Editorial concludes by saying:
Putting Pruitt in charge of the EPA, however, poses an
irreversible risk to the planet, and the Senate needs to
ensure that doesn't happen.
It is not just the coastal editorial boards that have opposed Mr. Pruitt. The Denver Post noted that--these are their words from 2 months ago, December 8, 2016:
It looks like Trump truly does wish to dismantle the EPA.
His pick of Scott Pruitt to lead it strikes us as
unnecessarily reckless, and we urge the Senate to deny
confirmation and to demand a better way forward.
It is not on the poster, but the Denver paper went on to add: Does the Nation really want a Big Oil mouthpiece running the agency that's charged with the laudable task of keeping our air and water safe?
Let's head up to Chicago, where the Sun Times was editorializing in the great State of Illinois. The Chicago Sun Times Editorial Board-- let's see what we have for a date. It looks like December 8, a couple of months ago. This is what they said:
We are living in a time that calls for stepping up efforts
across the board to protect our environment for future
generations.
Unfortunately, President-elect Donald Trump has appointed
Scott Pruitt, an open foe of environmental initiatives, to
head the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That
demonstrates a callous disregard for the health of our nation
and planet just as rapid technological advances hold out hope
for avoiding the worst effects of climate change.
It went on to say:
During his campaign, Trump said he would dismantle
President Barrack Obama's environmental policies and pull the
United States out of the 195-nation Paris accord to reduce
greenhouse gases and climate change. After the election,
Trump moderated his tone, saying he has an open mind about
climate change. His appointment of Pruitt, however, suggests
that if he's open to anything, it's strictly more pollution.
They concluded with these words:
At a time when serious scientists worry about cataclysmic
disasters threatened by climate change, we can't afford to
put our future in the hands of an apologist for the fossil
fuel industry. America needs an EPA chief who understands the
value of environmental successes we have achieved and the
critical importance of building on them.
But perhaps these aren't convincing enough. Travel with me down to Texas because they have a problem even in Texas, in the Lone Star State. One of the newspapers there, the Dallas Morning News, wrote just last week:
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a veteran of a
years-long courthouse campaign to undermine the Environmental
Protection Agency, is the wrong choice to lead the agency
under President Donald Trump. It's hard to imagine a worse
choice.
They highlighted the long-term impact of putting Mr. Pruitt in charge of the EPA. Here is what they said:
The post of EPA administrator is a critical one, and
nowhere is that more tangible than here in energy-rich Texas.
Again, this is the Dallas Morning News:
Many industry voices have already raised toasts to Pruitt's
nomination, concluding that his plans to eviscerate the EPA's
regulatory oversight of oil and gas companies, and other
polluters, will strengthen the state's economic fortunes.
The Morning News went on to write that the Senators from Texas must ``look beyond the short-sighted calculus and vote in the long-term interests of Texas. Put simply, Texas' economy will be stronger over time if its environment is cleaner and if its people are healthier.''
This is just one of a handful of the editorial boards that have raised serious and substantive objections to Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and for very good reason. They don't just come from the Northeast or from the east coast, they don't just come from the Southeast or the Midwest; they come from the west coast and even Texas itself. We ought to listen to them. We ought to listen to them. They are not all wrong. In fact, I fear they are right.
With that, I see we have been joined on the floor by a young man from Connecticut who came to share some of his own thoughts with us on these important topics.
I just want to thank him for the good work he does in so many areas. He and I have been partners together on trying to make sure the people of this country have access to affordable healthcare, and we get better results for less money, and I applaud him for those efforts, as he knows probably better than I, to try to ensure that people are healthy. It is not enough just to provide healthcare for them when they get sick. We call that sick care. We try to make sure we are doing things up front to prevent people from getting sick, to enable them to stay healthy. A lot of that really leads right to the work of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Leadership is so important in everything we do. It is the most critical factor in everything. Leadership is the key to the success of any organization, large or small, that I have ever been a part of or observed. I don't care if it is a business, I don't care if it is a church, I don't care if it is a school, I don't care if it is a military unit, a sports team, or the U.S. Senate, leadership is key. The EPA is key.
Show me enlightened, well-qualified leadership, and I will show you a successful operation. We need to be real careful in making sure the EPA has the kind of leadership that will lead them and our Nation well into the future.
With that, I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. President, I lived in Palo Alto Park, that part of the State. The Naval Air Station was there. It used to be called Moffett Field. It is still there. I remember the hangars that we used during the time we served on Active Duty.
I had the privilege of knowing a number of attorneys general from California, and we are very pleased to be able to welcome Senator Harris to our floor. Yesterday she gave her maiden address on the Senate floor.
Thank you.
She is pretty good.
I would say that you are even better than I thought. That was wonderful. Those were wonderful comments. I know our Presiding Offerer is also the chairman of our committee and probably is not enjoying your comments as much as I am, but I thought you were evenhanded and fair in sharing that.
The Presiding Officer is a pretty good friend of mine, and I don't know if he is a big baseball fan. I am. I love sports. I am a huge Detroit Tigers fan. You are a Giants fan. The leadership in baseball is critically important. It is important to have good infielders, good outfielders, good pitchers, catchers, and so forth. What is really important is to have great leadership and great leadership in terms of the coaching staff. Leadership is always the most important ingredient in every organization I have ever been a part of.
The Tigers just lost their owner, Mike Ilitch. He was a legendary figure in Detroit in baseball. He passed away earlier this week at the tender age of 86. It is a big loss for Motown and, frankly, for baseball.
In terms of leadership, we wouldn't want to hire somebody to coach a baseball team who was a football coach or someone who is great with a basketball team. I don't doubt that Scott Pruitt a skillful lawyer. I met his family. I like him. I think he is arguably a good dad and a good husband. But it is a little bit like asking a pacifist to lead something like the Department of Defense--may be a skillful person but maybe just not the right person to do a particular job.
I thought you outlined that very well. I wanted to say welcome to the big leagues. We are going to learn a lot from you.
I yield back.