John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, it was 7 years ago that Democrats in Congress passed ObamaCare. They promised lower healthcare costs. What they delivered was a Washington mandate for expensive insurance that many people found actually wasn't insurance they could use, even though they were forced to buy it. For 7 years, Americans have suffered under the consequences of that decision by this body and by the former President. Less than 7 weeks into the Trump administration, Republicans introduced a plan to give Americans real healthcare reform. The American people know that ObamaCare has been a disaster, one broken promise after another. I hear about this every weekend when I am home in Wyoming. I heard about it this past weekend. There is now only one insurance company that is willing to offer ObamaCare coverage in my entire State. There are 1,000 counties all across the country in the same situation--only one option. This is not a marketplace; it is a monopoly. As a doctor who has practiced medicine for 25 years, I can tell you that when it comes to healthcare, the last thing patients want to hear is that they don't have a choice: It is this or nothing. That is why Republicans promised we were going to repeal the restrictions in ObamaCare that limit people's choices. We promised to give people options, not mandates. The healthcare bill we are debating now is the first step to keeping that promise. The bill starts to give people more choices so they can pick what is right for them and for their families. I want to talk about three ways that it does this. First, the bill removes the mandates. It ends both the individual and the employer mandates. It eliminates the penalties that hard-working families have to pay if they decide that overpriced ObamaCare insurance isn't right for them. This was one of the most outrageous and unfair parts of the healthcare law. These mandates will be gone. Second, the bill that the House is considering cuts taxes. It gets rid of the ObamaCare tax on prescription drugs. It gets rid of the ObamaCare tax on health insurance. It gets rid of the taxes on artificial appliances, such as pacemakers and artificial joints. Overall, the bill eliminates 15 different taxes. These taxes are obviously passed on to consumers; repealing them helps to bring down the cost of care. Third, the repeal bill creates options for people and for States. It encourages people to find creative ways to help make healthcare costs more affordable for them. It expands how people can use health savings accounts, which is a great option for many people. It helps States do innovative things, such as create high risk pools to bring down costs for everybody. It gives States more flexibility when it comes to Medicaid Programs. Let's face it: Medicaid is broken, and ObamaCare just threw more people onto this second-class health insurance. Just last week, we got evidence of how badly Medicaid is harming patients. The chief executive at the Mayo Clinic said in his speech that his hospital is going to give precedence to people with private insurance over people on Medicaid. The supporters of ObamaCare said that their biggest success is the number of people who got coverage by being put into Medicaid. Well, it is clear that many of these people are being harmed by being in Medicaid, a system that has been broken for decades. It is alarming and it is also appalling. We have to fundamentally reform the Medicaid Program. To do that, we have to give States more options for coming up with the reforms that work for them and for the people who live in those States. Every State is different, and a one-size-fits-all mandate from Washington will never work for all of the States all across the country. Democrats tried it, and it failed dramatically. ObamaCare is collapsing all around us. We have to do something, and we have to start now. In the next couple of months, insurance companies are going to start making decisions about what they are going to do for next year, 2018. They will be figuring out how much they want to charge and whether they want to be involved in the ObamaCare exchanges at all. People have been losing their coverage and losing choices ever since the Democrats wrote the healthcare law and the President signed it 7 years ago. I believe it is going to get worse every day that we delay. There are Democrats who don't really seem to care much about any of that. They would rather set the whole healthcare system on a path to fall apart completely before they will ever admit that they were wrong. Hard-working Americans and families across the country don't have that luxury. There are still 25 million Americans without insurance even 7 years after ObamaCare has been in place. Every year, people have gotten letters in the mail telling them that their plans have been canceled. That is the reality of ObamaCare. Democrats want to pretend that everything is fine, but that is absolutely not true. That is why it is so important that President Trump jumped in right away to take important steps to help stabilize the marketplace. He recognized what Democrats won't admit--that these ObamaCare markets are falling apart. So the President has already started doing what he can to stabilize the markets, to make sure people keep their options for health coverage. The Department of Health and Human Services has taken steps to preserve programs that ObamaCare tried to eliminate. These are plans that people already had and they liked and the law tried to say they could no longer exist. The Trump administration has said people can continue on those plans. The administration also tightened up some of the rules to make sure people actually pay the premiums for this year's insurance before they are allowed to sign up for next year. The administration is taking commonsense steps that will make it harder for people to game the system and that will lower the cost for everyone else. These are important steps. The administration is going to be doing a lot more to protect families and to create more options. This repeal bill isn't perfect; nobody says it is. Still, it is a monumental shift away from ObamaCare. The American people will be better off with this repeal plan. They will be better off with the additional reforms that we will continue to push after this bill. I hope that Democrats will join us and offer their own ideas about what these additional reforms will look like. I hope they realize that families are better off when they have more choices, not fewer. We are better off when people can decide what is better for them and their families, not when government tells them what to do. We are better off when healthcare decisions are left to patients and doctors, not to Washington bureaucrats and insurance companies. We are better off when people have freedom and options, not mandates and penalties. America needs healthcare reform. What we had before ObamaCare wasn't working; I saw that as a doctor. What we have now isn't working, either. It is time for everyone to admit that and to take this opportunity to start repairing the damage, start creating real reform. As Ronald Reagan said: It is better to get 80 percent of what you want rather than go over the cliff with a flag flying. The American people are asking for our help, and we cannot turn our backs on them now. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, joining my colleague here on the floor, I agree with all of the comments the Senator from Arizona has made. They are interesting because as to the history of the State of the Senator from Arizona and his family history, Judge Gorsuch has a similar history, to the point that his great-grandfather built a hotel in Wyoming called the Wolf Hotel, in Saratoga, WY. I found a picture of that hotel from 1878, which was 12 years before Wyoming became a State. I got that picture from the American history museum at the University of Wyoming and got a copy of the picture and gave it to Judge Gorsuch. In front of the hotel in 1878, there was a stagecoach with six horses lined up ahead of it. The Wolf Hotel was a halfway stop on the stagecoach line between a couple of communities in Wyoming. They were about 40 miles apart. So that is the heritage from which Judge Gorsuch comes. I think that western heritage is important. But I think that additionally important is what the Senator referred to--his judicial temperament, being such a mainstream member of the judiciary, and this general belief inherent within him that the role of a judge is to apply the law, not to legislate from the bench. We have seen so much legislating from the bench. I think you just don't get that if you take somebody from the Rocky Mountain West who has this view of the Nation and an understanding of the rule of law and the Constitution. So I think we are going to see that when the Senate Judiciary Committee begins its hearings next week on Judge Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court. I visited with him, reviewed his writings, and then compared it to what I saw when I visited with Justice Scalia when he came to Wyoming. The Senator from Arizona mentioned the picture of the two working together, fishing together. I just think he is the right person to continue that incredible legacy of Justice Scalia.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, it is about 50-50. But when you talk about the heavy hand of a bureaucratic government and the impact on the lives of the people who live there, it is dramatic. It can be very punishing, as we have seen over the last 8 years with regulations that have come out of agencies--sometimes, I believe, in defiance of the law, sometimes reversed by the Supreme Court. That is why I think it is critical to have Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court, because he is someone who realizes that the Constitution is a legal document--not a living document, not built for flexibility, but really a rigid legal document. That is where I believe he stands. That is what his writings indicate. It is the sort of thing we have seen from him. I visited with him, and other Members have. These are the things we read about. With regard to his writings over the years, this is a judge who has faithfully applied the law--applied the law, focusing on the Constitution. He has not been afraid to rule against the government or for unpopular parties when the law demands it because he is going to go right back to the law. I believe his opinions show great reverence for all of the Constitution--a key respect for the importance of the separation of powers. I support his nomination completely. It is interesting, because when he was nominated for the position he currently holds, the Democratic Senator from Colorado--and I am expecting Senator Cory Gardner to be here in a little bit to talk about the quote from Ken Salazar, the former Senator from Colorado, who talked about what a wonderful man Judge Gorsuch was and how he should be put onto that bench. He was unanimously confirmed here in the Senate. I have full confidence in Judge Gorsuch as a son of the West, as the only Justice from the Rocky Mountain West who would be on the Court. Specifically, though, I would support him no matter where he was from because of his belief that it is the role of a judge and a justice to apply the law, not to legislate from the bench, which I think goes above and beyond where someone is from, what their background may be. But I will just tell you that his background, combined with his philosophy and mainstream approach to the law, is exactly what we need now in 2017 on the U.S. Supreme Court. I believe he deserves an up-or- down vote. I believe he will be confirmed as people get a chance to see him, get to know him better. I see I am joined on the floor by another colleague, also from the Rocky Mountain West, the Senator from Montana. You have heard from Arizona, Wyoming, and now Montana. I would ask him about his thoughts about this nomination by President Trump of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO. Yes.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I am hearing the exact same thing at home. The premiums in our State for people having to buy on the exchange have gone up double digits. I think we had the same thing happen in your State year after year, to the point where if you only have one company selling on the exchange in rural communities--for us, it is our whole State. That is a big problem. The other thing we certainly are concerned about--and I know this is the case with both Senator Blunt and me--ours is a rural State, and huge areas of your State are rural. The architect of ObamaCare, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel from the University of Pennsylvania, said that we have too many hospitals in the United States. He said there are 5,000 hospitals, and he said there are about 1,000 too many. He actually wrote a book about this after they wrote the healthcare law, and he said that there are about 1,000 too many and they need to close. Well, if you are in rural Wyoming or rural Missouri, those hospitals are a long way from other places. The first I think 80 hospitals have closed, and they were rural hospitals. Fortunately not in my State, but in a number of States, you have seen that--numbers of rural hospitals closing. When a rural hospital closes as a result of the Obama healthcare law, the impact on a community is dramatic in terms of it being able to recruit nurses, doctors, and businesses to the community, if there is not a hospital, and to recruit teachers to the schools. I don't know if that is an experience and concern the Senator is seeing around rural Missouri.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, thank you for allowing me to engage in this colloquy with my friend and colleague, Senator Blunt from Missouri, who has been a real leader not just in the Senate but when he was in the House, traveling to all of the hospitals in Missouri and talking about the issues that concern the people there, as I do in Wyoming every weekend, going home and talking to people at home. You may not know this, but I was the president of the Wyoming Medical Society and worked with something as the medical director called the Wyoming Health Fairs, where we brought low-cost health screening to people all around the Cowboy State. I had been going to these health fairs for years--when I was a doctor practicing medicine, when I was an orthopedic surgeon, and then when I was in the State senate and now as a U.S. Senator, to the point that I was at a health fair last Saturday in Buffalo, WY. People come to the fairs. They get their blood tested ahead of time so they can come and pick up the results and find out about their cholesterol and thyroid conditions and other issues. There are booths from the Heart Association and the Diabetes Society, depression screenings, all sorts of things. People there are very interested in their health. When they see me as a doctor and knowing I am also a Senator, they want to talk about how the healthcare laws affected their lives. What I hear, story after story, is, you have to repeal this ObamaCare. Many of them are people who had insurance that worked for them before the healthcare law was passed. When the healthcare law was passed, they were basically told that what they had, which worked for them and which they could afford, wasn't good enough for the government. The government said: No, you have to buy something else, something more expensive and not what you really need or want--which is getting into the fundamental problem here. ObamaCare is collapsing all around the country. In Wyoming, as in many places--and I know Senator Blunt is in a situation where he has people whom he works with--there is not really a marketplace out there. It is a monopoly. There is only one choice. We see our colleagues--Senator Alexander in his home State and Senator Corker--in some counties, there are no choices. Nobody is going to sell on the exchange. Even with the ObamaCare government subsidies, there is nothing to be bought. We have to act now. The House is in the process of doing that. I think they have made an incredible effort, a fundamental change, a big step away from ObamaCare. It is a monumental shift. What it does is it eliminates the things I hear about every weekend in Wyoming that people don't like about the healthcare law. It is the mandates. It is the taxes. It is the penalties they have to pay. People don't like that. They don't like the government saying: You have to buy a government- approved product, pay for it, whether or not you want it, whether or not it works for you. We eliminate all of those things in what the House is debating now. What do we preserve? We preserve things that people know are important for them. People with preexisting conditions will still be protected. My wife Bobbi is a breast cancer survivor. She has been through operations. She has been through chemotherapy, radiation. As a doctor and as a husband, I know how important it is to protect people with preexisting conditions. There is also a limit on lifetime payments for people who get sick. Finally, we do want to keep and we do preserve for families--they can keep younger members of their family on their insurance, to the age of 26. We eliminate the things people don't like. We preserve the things that are still so important for families all around the country. We work to get to the point where people can afford health insurance again. It is interesting listening to the Democrats talking about how many people have been covered under ObamaCare. What you find out is that coverage is empty. They may have an insurance card, but if the copays are so high and the deductibles are so high--$5,000, $6,000, $7,000--it is unusable. They say: I have ObamaCare, but I don't have the ability to get the care. The issue of Medicaid, which was a failed system for a long time--it has been 50 years since Medicaid came into existence. There is a lot we need to do to modernize, update, streamline, strengthen, improve Medicaid in ways that actually help people. I was in the State senate. Mr. President, I know you have a long history of involvement in your home State. Senator Blunt does as well with the activities there. What we have seen with Medicaid--and I saw it in the State legislature--if we had the freedom and the flexibility in the State to make the decisions about how that money was spent rather than dealing with all of these rules and regulations and one- size-fits-all that comes out of Washington, we always felt we could do a much better job of providing for the people of our State. Let the State make involved decisions for people on Medicaid, and we could help a lot more people for the same amount of money. It seemed there was so much waste and abuse in the whole Medicaid system. So much of what the House is doing is to try to get the power out of Washington. The question is, Whom do you want in control? Do you want the government in control or the people, and their care and the decisions being made at home? I come to the floor today to thank my colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this from the days before he was even in the U.S. Senate, from his days in the House, and for his involvement. He was really one of the leaders in the House before coming to the Senate on this whole topic. He knows it well. He visits with people at home in his home State, as I do at home in mine. I will be at home in Wyoming again this weekend, traveling around the State with different activities. I think one of the things we all do when we go home is visit with people and find out where they are going to be and what is on their minds, and that is the best way to do it. I will be at a pancake breakfast. I will be at a Boy Scout event. I will be at a dinner at the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. I will visit with a number of high school students. You hear people. You want to be there and listen to what they have to say. So I am looking forward to being there again this weekend, as I was last weekend--in Buffalo last weekend for the health fair in Rawlins--for an event to hear how what Washington does impacts their lives. What we have seen over the past 6 or 7 years since ObamaCare became law is that decisions being made in Washington hurt a lot of people in Wyoming, hurt people who were patients of mine when I was actively practicing as a surgeon. The regulations, the one-size-fits-all in terms of the impact on the hospitals, the healthcare providers, and the patients--we know these people need relief. They need to be rescued from this collapsing ObamaCare healthcare law. And we want to repair the damage. We can't get it all done overnight. It is not possible. It took us about 6\1/2\, 7 years to get to this point. President Trump has only been in office for about 7 weeks. You can't get it done overnight. We are making definite strides in the direction that is important for the country. I wish to ask my friend and colleague Senator Blunt if he is seeing the same things in Missouri and hearing the same sorts of stories as we work to repeal and replace this healthcare law.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about bipartisan legislation designed to strengthen our Nation's nuclear energy capacity. It is called the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. I am a strong supporter of American nuclear energy. It is a vital component of our ``all of the above'' American energy plan. My home State of Wyoming plays a key role in American nuclear energy supply. In Wyoming, we produce more uranium than any other State. Nuclear energy is clean, safe, reliable, and affordable. It also provides a major boost to the economy. American nuclear plants provide thousands of jobs and millions of dollars in benefits to local communities. U.S. nuclear powerplants have run safely for decades, and many of them will serve our country for years and decades to come. But after decades of reliable power from our traditional nuclear powerplants, these nuclear powerplants are experiencing innovation with opportunities that are now taking shape in the nuclear industry. Increased private investment is occurring in nuclear energy, and it has led to improvements in safety, security, and in cost. This is no longer a traditional nuclear industry. There are nuclear startups which are being backed by American entrepreneurs. Research and work are being done by Bill Gates, of all people. These folks envision fundamentally transforming nuclear energy technology. I believe the advances are exciting. The biggest challenges these innovators face, however, are the costs and delays from regulatory redtape. Many of these delays come from trying to navigate a regulatory system that was developed around one specific technology, which is water-cooled reactors. The traditional water-cooled reactors have powered our Navy and our electricity grid and have done it successfully for decades, but today's entrepreneurs are pursuing very different designs. They are using high-temperature gases, molten salts, and other high-tech materials to advance the safety, efficiency, and reliability of nuclear energy. The nuclear regulatory system needs to be updated to enable this innovation. That is why I join with my colleagues in introducing the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. Cosponsors include Senators Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Fischer, Capito, and Manchin. We come together having introduced S. 512. Our bipartisan bill seeks to modernize the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by providing a flexible regulatory framework for licensing advanced nuclear reactors. The NRC needs a modern regulatory framework that is predictable and efficient. Reactor operators for both traditional and advanced reactors need timely decisionmaking from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. At the same time, the Commission needs to maintain its ability to assess a variety of technologies and meet its mission of administering safety and security to the American people. Additionally, our legislation will update the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fee recovery rules. This measure is going to bring increased transparency and accountability to the NRC, while also improving the Commission's efficiency and timeliness. This bill will also help to preserve the uranium producers who are essential to powering the technology. The Energy Information Administration reports that uranium production in 2016 was at its lowest level since way back in 2005. It is crucial that we restore our American uranium sector and preserve these important jobs. Our bipartisan legislation is going to enable the development of innovative reactors with bold, new technologies. As a nation, we can either lead this technology revolution or we can defer to our competitors. China and Russia are already developing advanced technologies regardless of what we do here in the United States. America needs to be a leader of nuclear development. We need to create an environment where entrepreneurs can flourish. This is the way to create jobs here at home and revitalize our nuclear energy sector at the same time. One way to enable innovation for advanced reactors is to provide a regulatory framework that is predictable and cost-effective and that maintains the NRC's safety and security mission. The bill we haved introduced, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, does all of this. This broadly bipartisan bill will strengthen American energy independence and foster innovation and job creation. I thank Senators Whitehouse, Inhofe, Booker, Crapo, Fischer, Capito, and Manchin for cosponsoring this legislation, and I urge its support. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, since Inauguration Day, the Senate has been slow making its way through confirming Cabinet Secretaries. Democrats, it seems, have used just about every trick in the book to try to slow down the process. There are Democrats in the Senate who are delaying things even when other Democrats in the Senate support the person who has actually been nominated by the President. (Mr. YOUNG assumed the Chair.) Remember when President Obama took office, Republicans were far more willing to let the President have the team he wanted. He had won the election and was entitled to his Cabinet. We are now 39 days into President Trump's term, and the Senate has confirmed now 17 of his nominees--17 over 39 days. President Obama got 20 of his people confirmed in the first 9 days. It does seem the more the Democrats delay, the more the American people will see the Democrats are just being childish and spiteful.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I yield the floor.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the nomination of Attorney General Scott Pruitt to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Scott Pruitt is the right person to run the Agency, and we need to confirm him. Over the past 8 years, the political leaders of the EPA have taken actions that have undermined the American people's faith in the Agency. They have pushed broad and sweeping regulations that have hurt our economy and have failed to protect our environment. These regulations include the so-called Clean Power Plan. This is a rule that will kill job growth in States like Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and my home State of Wyoming. These also include regulations defining the term ``waters of the United States.'' This was a classic example of Washington overreach. The Agency brought irrigation ditches, plowed farm fields, and even parking lot puddles under Federal control. With both of these rules, dozens of State governments have had to take Washington to court. Why? Well, to try to stop the crippling effects of these Washington-based regulations. The Agency's outrageous actions have extended beyond these rules and have had real consequences for many American families. According to the chamber of commerce, since 2008 this regulatory rampage by the EPA has destroyed 19,000 coal-mining jobs nationwide. In Kentucky, nearly 4 out of every 10 coal-mining jobs have disappeared over the past 8 years. Ohio and Pennsylvania have each lost more than 1,000 fossil fuel electric power jobs during the same period. In West Virginia, 5,200 coal-mining jobs have vanished just since 2011. The total cost of all of this new redtape from the Environmental Protection Agency is more than $300 billion. The leadership at the EPA has failed. It has failed because a lot of their regulations are bad ideas. That is not the only way the political leaders at the Agency have failed; they have actually hurt people and damaged the environment directly. In 2015, more than 3 million gallons of toxic wastewater spilled into the river at the Gold King Mine in Colorado. The government Agency charged with protecting our environment actually caused this spill and poisoned a river. This was a direct result of negligence on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency. This plume of toxic liquid flowed downstream to New Mexico and polluted the Navajo Nation's main source of drinking water and irrigation water. In the final days of the Obama administration, the EPA then denied $1.2 billion in damage claims from the farmers, the Native American tribes, and small businesses impacted by the EPA's own negligence. In Flint, MI, old pipes and improperly treated water caused lead poisoning in children. When the leadership at the EPA learned of the issue, they failed to respond in a timely manner. The regional EPA administrator actually resigned following the incident. For the last 8 years, the political leaders of this Agency have been reckless, irresponsible, and arrogant. Change is badly needed at the Environmental Protection Agency and Scott Pruitt will be that change. Mr. Pruitt has served as attorney general in the State of Oklahoma since 2011--6 years. He has worked to protect the environment in his State, while also working for the benefit of all the people of Oklahoma. He has taken on polluters. He has worked across party lines to do it. When poultry farmers in Arkansas, a neighboring State to Oklahoma, were increasing phosphorous levels in the Illinois River that runs between the States, he worked with Arkansas' Democratic attorney general on a solution. They found a way to reduce pollution and establish permanent standards. Former Arkansas Attorney General McDaniel, a Democrat, called Pruitt a ``staunch defender of sound science and good policy as appropriate tools to protect the environment in his State.'' Scott Pruitt also helped negotiate a water rights settlement between tribes in Oklahoma. The deal will help preserve scenic rivers and lakes so they can be enjoyed for generations to come. Scott Pruitt also stood up to industry when they caused pollution. That is why the entire Oklahoma congressional delegation has endorsed his nomination. He has been an advocate for the environment in Oklahoma, and he will be an advocate for the environment in Washington. When the EPA overstepped its mission, Attorney General Pruitt led the charge to rein in Big Government Washington overreach. Time after time, Scott Pruitt worked with other States to challenge the Agency when it exceeded its authority. Under his leadership, this Agency will respect the rule of law. Attorneys general from 24 States have endorsed Scott Pruitt as someone who can protect the environment while also protecting State decisionmaking. He has also won the support of small businesses and farmers around the country. Groups like the National Federation of Independent Business, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Home Builders, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and many others have voiced their support for Mr. Pruitt. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I take the nomination process very seriously. Our committee thoroughly vetted Mr. Pruitt. We held a confirmation hearing that lasted more than 6 hours. That is by far the longest confirmation hearing for an EPA Administrator on record. During this hearing, Attorney General Pruitt was asked more than 200 questions by Members of the committee. We had four rounds of questions--an unprecedented number. Our Democratic colleagues on the committee noted during the hearing how fair the process was. They said how much they appreciated the opportunity to ask so many questions. After the hearing, committee members submitted another 1,078 written questions to Mr. Pruitt to answer for the record. Again, this is the most ever for a nominee to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. His answers were thoughtful, and they were thorough. That is why I was very disappointed to see the Democrats on the committee decide to boycott the meeting to vote on the Pruitt nomination. The minority complained that he didn't answer enough questions. Democrats have even complained that he has not been vetted thoroughly enough. That is ridiculous. Scott Pruitt is the most thoroughly vetted nominee we have ever had to lead this Agency. Democrats are using delaying tactics to slow down the confirmation of many of this administration's most important nominees. These boycotts and delay tactics do nothing to protect our environment or the health of Americans. Democrats are engaged in nothing more than political theater. They are wasting time while the Environmental Protection Agency needs a new Administrator. Attorney General Pruitt has protected the environment in his home State. He is endorsed by his peers, and he has been thoroughly vetted for the job. He will make an excellent EPA Administrator. It is time for the Senate to confirm him. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the following items in support of Mr. Pruitt's nomination: First are two op-eds I authored, one is from FOX News that is entitled ``For Eight Years, the EPA Has Made Life Hard for Too Many Americans. That's About to Change.'' The second is from USA TODAY, entitled: ``The Strong Leader the EPA Needs.'' I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record some other items: a letter from Dustin McDaniel, Democrat and Arkansas former attorney general. In the letter, he writes that he ``saw firsthand how Attorney General Pruitt was able to bridge political divides and manage multiple agency agendas to reach an outcome that was heralded by most credible observers as positive and historic.'' Another item for the Record is a letter from 24 State attorneys general who wrote in support of Mr. Pruitt's qualifications. Also for the Record is a letter I received from J.D. Strong. He is the director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation. In the letter, Mr. Strong directly refutes a New York Times article titled ``Scott Pruitt, Trump's EPA Pick, Backed Industry Donors over Regulators.'' Mr. Strong writes: As a fifth generation Oklahoman and someone who has devoted my career to natural resource protection, I take great pride in the progress that has been made in improving Oklahoma's land, air, water, and wildlife resources. He goes on to say-- For the past six years, General Pruitt has been instrumental in many of our successes and never asked me to compromise regulatory efforts to benefit industry. Also, I would like to include in the Record an op-ed by Ed Fite, the former agency administrator of the Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission. He writes: Scott Pruitt is one who is committed to finding a balance that protects and preserves our environment while at the same time affords an opportunity for a robust economy to exist. Achievement of one doesn't have to be exclusive of the other.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, over the past weeks, we have seen Democrats continue to use one delaying tactic after another on the floor of the Senate. They have tried to slow down the confirmation of many of the administration's most important nominees. We have seen it time and again. We have seen it in agencies all across the government, including right now the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA. Democrats are just wasting time, and they are doing it intentionally. They are not protecting our environment, not one bit. They are not safeguarding the health of the American people, not at all. Government agencies like the EPA and one after another need their leadership in place and they need it in place now. What they don't need, what the American people don't need, is more political theater from the Senate Democrats. We have heard a lot about Scott Pruitt's nomination to be Administrator of the EPA. Much of what we heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle has simply not been true. I want to set the record straight. As head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt will protect the environment. During his 6 years as attorney general for the State of Oklahoma, Mr. Pruitt has stood up to polluters, he has worked across State lines, and he has worked across party lines. He has done it to lower phosphorous levels in the Illinois River. He actually negotiated a water rights settlement with Oklahoma tribes. Why? Well, to preserve scenic lakes and rivers. He used commonsense policies. He used them to protect the environment in Oklahoma, and he will follow commonsense policies at the Environmental Protection Agency. The delays we have seen by Democrats have never actually been about Mr. Pruitt or his record or the answers he has given to questions about his qualifications. He has answered over 1,200 questions. He has answered four rounds of questions in committee, went for 6\1/2\ hours. Members on the other side said these were very fair hearings. These delays are all about obstruction. They are all about denying President Trump his Cabinet. That is what this is all about. It is about pretending that their candidate Hillary Clinton did not lose the election in November. That is what this is all about. We have seen them use the same tactics on one Cabinet nominee after another. As the Cabinet nominees were named, what we saw was a list of eight nominees come out who Senator Schumer had as his hit list of nominees he was going to oppose, slow down, obstruct, boycott. Democrats delayed. They delayed again. They delayed again. That is what we saw in one after another. When Scott Pruitt is confirmed today, he will take office later than any incoming EPA Administrator for any new administration going back to the 1980s. Our friends on the other side of the aisle need to recognize that the terrible precedent they are setting today with all of these relentless and needless delays will continue into the future. It is a precedent, just like the precedent that Harry Reid set when he changed the rules of the Senate by breaking the rules. The Democrats need to see how their actions will continue to play forward, will affect the confirmation process for all future administrations, including Democratic administrations. The American people want someone in place to run these important Departments. What we see from the Democrats is political theater on the floor of the Senate. President Trump deserves to have his team in place. President Trump deserves to have his Cabinet in place. The Cabinet nominees deserve an up-or-down vote from the Senate on the floor of the Senate. That is what we are going to do today with Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who is qualified and who has been nominated to be the Administrator of the EPA. Scott Pruitt will protect our environment, and he will protect the health of all Americans. He is the right person for the job.

Mr. BARRASSO. At the end of my remarks, I will yield for a question. So I say to you, as I come here to the floor, I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee on Scott Pruitt's nomination. I listened to 6\1/2\ hours of testimony. I listened to and read through responses that he gave to 1,200 questions that were asked of him. He gave thorough answers--perhaps not the answers the Democrats wanted to hear but answers that I felt were responsive. So I come to the floor to urge all of my colleagues to support Mr. Pruitt's nomination to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. He is a nominee who, as attorney general in Oklahoma, protected the environment, worked to strengthen the economy, and stood up for States' rights, which continues to be most crucial. With that, Mr. President, I yield for a question.

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Minnesota, I think he may be referring to a part where I say: The delays by Democrats have never actually been about Mr. Pruitt's answers to questions or about his qualifications. These delays, I say, are all about obstruction and denying President Trump his Cabinet. I go on to say: It is about pretending that their candidate, Hillary Clinton, didn't lose the Presidential election.

Mr. BARRASSO. Well, Mr. President, it is my--

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, this is a very highly politicized situation. It is not my intention in any way to impugn any of the motives of any of the Members of this body. I yield back my time. Regular order.

Mr. BARRASSO. Regular order.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, for the past 8 years, the Environmental Protection Agency, through its regulatory rampage, has hurt a lot of people in my home State of Wyoming and all across the country. The EPA's overreaching regulations have stunted job growth, hurt our economy, and failed to help the Agency meet its mission. The mission is to protect the environment and the health of all Americans. The EPA needs to be reformed and modernized. Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt is the right person for the job. Mr. Pruitt is committed to protecting the environment, ensuring clean air, water, and land while also supporting a strong and healthy economy. He stood up to industry that polluted his State's air and water. He has received bipartisan support from Senators in this body, from State leaders, from small business, from farmers, from ranchers, and from many others across this country. Attorneys general from all around the country have recognized his good work. Attorney General Luther Strange of Alabama--now U.S. Senator Strange--and 23 of his peers wrote a letter in support of Mr. Pruitt's nomination. Here is what they wrote: The Administrator of the EPA plays a critical role in our Nation's government. Attorney General Pruitt has proven, over the course of his career, that he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to serve as Administrator of the