Thank you for contacting me about Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt. I appreciate hearing from you.

On February 17, 2017, the Senate approved Scott Pruitt as Administrator of the EPA by a 52-46 bipartisan vote. Administrator Pruitt previously served as the Oklahoma Attorney General and, among other things, represented the state in a variety of environmental actions. I voted in support of this nomination because as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt built a strong record of enforcing state environmental regulations and fighting against instances of federal overreach.

While I support sensible environmental protections, I am concerned about the excessive - and often duplicative - regulations coming out of the federal bureaucracy in recent years that needlessly impede job creation and harm Pennsylvania farmers, such as the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule, which would have placed federal bureaucrats in charge of practically every irrigation ditch, isolated pond, and non-navigable waterway across the state. Under the Obama Administration, the EPA was especially aggressive in proposing new rules that raised energy prices, imposed onerous compliance costs, undermined economic growth, and put Pennsylvanians out of work. I am hopeful that Administrator Pruitt will take a new direction and pursue a more balanced approach that is mindful of both our economy as well as our environment.

I have heard concerns from many constituents about how Administrator Pruitt will ignore his duties and responsibilities at the EPA or dismantle the agency altogether. Rather, Mr. Pruitt has testified that he will uphold the EPA's statutory requirement to protect our environment, as well as work with state and local governments to carry out necessary environmental protections. Administrator Pruitt has also stated that he wants the EPA to operate within the laws that are passed by Congress, not the politics of unelected government bureaucrats, and he will not approve regulations that do not have solid legal footing and cannot survive the judicial review process.
Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,