Mr. Reed: Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to the nomination of Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. President Trump has made it clear that he wants to savage environmental protections, and his administration has already started down this path of reversing some of our hard-fought progress to ensure we have a clean environment: clean water and fresh air. By nominating Mr. Pruitt , President Trump has chosen someone equally hostile to the very notion of defending our environment and our Nation's health.

Respected voices on both sides of the aisle have expressed similar alarm over Mr. Pruitt's nomination. President George W. Bush's former EPA Administrator, Christine Todd Whitman, who led the Agency from 2001 to 2003, stated in reference to Mr. Pruitt : ``I don't recall ever having seen an appointment of someone who is so disdainful of the Agency and the science behind what the Agency does.''

This is a sentiment I have heard from over a thousand Rhode Islanders--environmentalists, researchers, conservationists, community leaders, parents, concerned citizens--who agree that Mr. Pruitt is a troubling choice for this role. They have contacted my office to express how distressed they are that someone with Mr. Pruitt's record and background could be chosen to lead the EPA.

Last week I hosted a roundtable to hear these concerns directly from my constituents. These Rhode Islanders shared their worries about the state of our changing environment, anxiousness about Mr. Pruitt's nomination, and concerns over what they have seen so far, and fear is coming with respect to the Trump administration's approach to our environment. Nevertheless, they remain committed to ensuring that we have clean air and clean water because these natural resources are so important to our economy, our health, and our quality of life.

I share that commitment. I have consistently voted for strong environmental policies that seek to limit pollution, promote renewable energy, and mitigate the effects of climate change.

The EPA oversees the Federal Government's role in protecting our health and environment. It needs a leader who fundamentally believes in its core mission. Scott Pruitt has a record of working against the Agency's goals to protect Americans from pollution. That is the goal of the Agency. He does not believe or respect the scientific findings regarding climate change, and his close ties to the oil and gas industry are a serious concern.

These kinds of beliefs and views should be of concern to everyone in this Chamber.

 As Oklahoma's attorney general, Mr. Pruitt sued the EPA multiple times seeking to eliminate pollution regulations. He has a record of not only challenging the legal, scientific, and technical foundations of EPA rules, but he has also questioned the EPA's authority to issue them.

Mr. Pruitt filed as the plaintiff in these lawsuits, many of which are still pending. If confirmed as the EPA Administrator, he would be switching sides to become the defendant in these lawsuits. And yet, he has refused to recuse himself from any of these or related cases. He has also failed to provide records of his communications with fossil fuel companies during the years he served as attorney general.

It is abundantly clear that he cannot be impartial.

 This lack of transparency regarding Mr. Pruitt's connections to the oil and gas industry raises serious questions about what influence these conflicts will have on his ability to enforce regulations that protect everyday Americans from pollution generated by fossil fuel use.

The EPA Administrator must be someone who will uphold and enforce Federal environmental laws impartially and honorably, with Americans' health in mind.

One issue in particular that comes to mind is one I have worked on for decades across multiple Federal agencies--lead poisoning prevention. I have long advocated for better Federal policies and more funding to protect children from lead hazards. While the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention do much of this work, the EPA plays an important role as well.

I think we saw that very clearly over the last year with the situation in Flint, MI.

I was deeply concerned that when asked about lead poisoning among children during his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt told the committee that he, in his own words, ``really wasn't familiar with the basic science surrounding the health effects of lead poisoning.'' For the sake of his education on this issue--and to make all my colleagues who might not be aware of the impact--lead poisoning in children can cause serious and irreversible developmental and health problems.

We need an EPA Administrator who is familiar with and committed to protecting the health of our children from these and other kinds of environmental health hazards. Unfortunately, I do not believe Mr. Pruitt is qualified to do so.

During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Pruitt also displayed a lack of understanding of the role human activity plays in climate change, as well as a disregard for the scientists who have spent their lives studying and carefully observing our Earth's changing climate.

Our next EPA Administrator should understand the threat of climate change and base the Agency's policies on scientific data and findings without ideological influence. Many people across the Nation were distressed and deeply concerned by the removal of climate change reports from the EPA's website shortly after President Trump took office. I share that concern, and I am disturbed that the EPA has recently put a hold on issuing new grants and instituted a gag order on all communications.

This is alarming. The halting of Federal funds means that our investments in our water infrastructure, remediation of our watersheds, and support for numerous others environmental initiatives so vital to our local communities and States will be affected, and this will seriously harm environmental protection efforts. In Rhode Island, these cuts could have devastating effects, such as hindering the State's ability to provide clean air and clean drinking water for all residents.

We need an EPA Administrator who is committed to safeguarding clean water and clean air and who is experienced in environmental protection. This role demands someone who is prepared to preserve and defend our environment from harm, who can make decisions based on scientific evidence, and whose financial ties will not impact his decisions when it comes to protecting the American public from pollution.

Scott Pruitt is not the EPA Administrator we need. The nature of the lawsuits he filed attempting to dismantle EPA regulations that protect clean air and water--the very regulations he would be charged with enforcing--demonstrates that he is not committed to defending our natural resources, our health, and our well-being. Mr. Pruitt , in my estimate, is unsuited and unqualified for this critical leadership position.

For these reasons, I cannot support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no.