[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 28 (Thursday, February 16, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1381-S1382]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         Remembering Bob Michel

  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, every politician alive should aspire for 
that moment, like Bob Michel, when the last words of tribute to his 
public service are: ``He was the face of decency in public service.''
  This morning, Bob Michel, who served as the leader of the U.S. House 
of Representatives for the Republican Party, passed away at age 93.
  His replacement as Republican leader in the House marked the end of 
an era of civility--Congress has never been the same--but his life as 
the son of an immigrant, as a decorated veteran of World War II, and as 
a person who was first a staffer, then elected to Congress, and rose to 
leadership is a testament to his talent and his commitment to America.
  I had known Bob Michel for 35 years. We had adjoining congressional 
districts downstate. When he was elected in 1982, in the Reagan off-
year election, it was a tough year for Republicans. Bob Michel barely 
survived. Attorney Doug Stevens, of Peoria, had about 48 percent, and 
Bob had 52 percent. Lane Evans, of the Quad Cities, was elected to 
Congress, and I was as well.
  For 14 years, we were neighboring Congressmen. Bob Michel came in and 
campaigned for my opponents. I went into his district to campaign for 
his opponents. You would think that would have created a negative 
relationship, but it didn't. Despite that--despite our differences on 
political issues--we were always friends, and we were always 
respectful.
  You could not help but be a friend of Bob Michel's. What an amazing 
personality--a smile that would light up a room and a man who was 
determined to fight like crazy, day in and day out, for the things he 
believed in on the floor of the U.S. House and then, after adjournment, 
joined with Tip O'Neill for dinner--a dinner that usually ended up with 
a lot of people singing songs over a few drinks and great memories.
  The codels in those days--the congressional delegation trips--were 
often bipartisan and had both Speaker O'Neill and the Republican 
leader, Bob Michel, hosting them as they went to important places in 
the world.
  There was a time when Bob Michel was a Congressman and wanted to get 
home to Peoria every weekend but couldn't afford the airfare. Do you 
know what he did? He shared a station wagon with Congressman Dan 
Rostenkowski of Chicago. They would take off and drive back to Chicago 
and Peoria and then back to Washington on a regular basis. They were 
buddies and didn't think twice about the fact that they were of 
different political parties and had different political philosophies.
  That was Bob Michel.
  His passing really does mark the end of an era, but every one of us 
currently in public service should remember the quality he brought to 
his career and the quality he brought to Congress. He left a great 
legacy--many important issues, many great things for Peoria and Central 
Illinois. Possibly, his greatest legacy was his chief of staff--his 
protege--Ray LaHood, who, to this day, embodies the great values that 
Bob Michel brought to public service.
  I stand in tribute to my friend and my Republican neighboring 
Congressman who served this Nation so well for so many years.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Madam President, when President Richard Nixon created 
the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, he recognized that we all 
share in a ``profound commitment to the rescue of our natural 
environment and the preservation of the Earth as a place both habitable 
by and hospitable to man.'' That is a pretty powerful commitment. That 
is the mission of the Environmental Protection Agency--to rescue our 
natural environment and keep our planet--our world, our Earth--as 
habitable and hospitable to humankind.
  For more than 46 years, the Environmental Protection Agency has been 
the top cop on the beat, safeguarding our natural environment while 
also protecting critical aspects of public health--controlling toxic 
and poisonous chemicals, improving air and water quality, enhancing 
vehicle efficiency and emissions controls. The lists of the 
Environmental Protection Agency's accomplishments go on and on.
  Today, we are considering President Trump's nominee for the 
Environmental Protection Agency. The appropriate question for us to ask 
is, Does this nominee hold in his heart the mission of the 
Environmental Protection Agency? Does he have a profound commitment to 
the rescue of our natural environment, a profound commitment to the 
preservation of the Earth to keep it habitable by humankind, hospitable 
to humankind?
  This individual is Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. We would 
like to have the full set of information about his work as attorney 
general that has been very relevant to this question, because the 
limited information we have shows that he has very deep connections and 
very close allegiance to the fossil fuel industry. And rather than 
displaying during his time as AG a profound commitment to our natural 
environment, to preserve it and keep it hospitable and habitable, he 
has instead weighed in time and time again on behalf of the polluters.

  So for us to have a full sense of these connections, we need to have 
access to the emails and correspondence that he has generated over the 
last 2 years tied to the fossil fuel industry.
  There are some 3,000 emails and associated pieces of correspondence--
we are not sure of the exact total, but that is a substantial body of 
information that has been identified--and for 2 years, the attorney 
general, Scott Pruitt, has stonewalled the efforts to obtain these 
documents. There have been repeated requests time and time again filed 
with his office, and his office has failed to produce the information 
requested under the Public Information Act of Oklahoma. Time and time 
again, he said no, no, no.
  So then he comes to this body as a nominee to be the steward-in-chief 
of the responsibilities for our environment. So here in the Senate, we 
asked for those emails to help understand

[[Page S1382]]

whether he has served the public or whether he has served the 
polluters. That is the question before us. He said: Well, apply to the 
attorney general's office of Oklahoma for those emails and information.
  This is rather unique. I don't know if this has ever happened in the 
history of the United States, the nominee saying: Yes, you can acquire 
that information by applying to me, back in my role as attorney 
general, knowing full well that he had absolutely no intention of 
actually providing that information.
  Then yesterday a court stepped forward and said: Yes, this 
information must be provided. This is not the type of information that 
can be compiled overnight, so they gave Attorney General Scott Pruitt a 
couple of days--until next Tuesday--to be able to compile this 
information and provide it. And when it is provided, it will simply be 
the equivalent of PDF documents--scanned copies, if you will--of the 
printed copies of the emails and correspondence. Then it has to be 
shipped out to the group that applied for the information, and then 
they have to digitize it and send it out for us to have it here. It is 
still not searchable. Then we need time to go through it.
  Well, it is convenient that we delay this vote until after we have 
this information because we are not going to be here next week. So 
whether we hold the vote at this moment, scheduled for 1 p.m., as we 
are leaving for a week or we hold it until when we return, on the 
Monday we return, it doesn't have any impact on slowing down this body. 
It would cost nothing in terms of the processing of the President's 
nominees to delay this vote until we return, at which time we will have 
the emails, and we will have had time to examine them, and the public 
will have had time to examine them, and that would honor our 
responsibility.
  The Constitution was laid out in a fashion to put full responsibility 
on the individuals staffing the key agencies and Cabinet departments 
with the President. The Founders, the writers of the Constitution, 
wrestled with who should have that responsibility. They thought perhaps 
the appropriate check would be to have the Congress--they refer to it 
as ``Assembly'' in their dialogues--the Assembly decide who would be 
the folks staffing the executive branch at the highest levels of 
management. They said that was a problem because there wouldn't be full 
transparency. The public wouldn't be able to determine why one person 
was chosen or another person was chosen. There might be all kinds of 
trades taking place between the Senators. One might say: If you give me 
my choice for this Cabinet post, I will give you your choice for 
another, and the public wouldn't even know how those deals were being 
struck.
  So the public accountability was honored by our Founders by saying 
the President will nominate, but in case the President goes off track 
and starts to nominate people of unfit character--unfit character--the 
Senate will have the responsibility to review the person's record and 
stop that nomination. That is our responsibility. That is the 
deterrence that Hamilton used, that we would take the process of this 
Chamber to ensure we do not confirm someone of unfit character. But to 
make that determination, we must have access to those emails, which are 
going to be distributed next Tuesday.
  Madam President, I yield the floor to my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Thank you, Madam President.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a UC request?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I will be happy to yield for a UC request.
  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the 
conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from New York, I be recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Does that meet the favor of my friend from Oregon? Is 
that OK?
  Mr. MERKLEY. Could we have that unanimous consent request restated?
  Mr. SCHUMER. The Senator from Oklahoma asked for 5 minutes 
immediately after my remarks.
  Mr. MERKLEY. No objection.
  Mr. SCHUMER. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.