[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7081-S7082]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of William Wehrum

  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, later today we will start the process of 
voting on the confirmation of William Wehrum for Assistant 
Administrator for the Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Air 
and Radiation. I take this time to urge my colleagues to reject this 
nominee and vote against his confirmation.
  The EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation 
supervises national programs and policies for regulating air pollution 
and radiation exposure. Notably, this office administers the Clean Air 
Act.
  As a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
I once again find myself using my voice to say that science and public 
health, not partisan politics, should drive the confirmation process.
  If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum is expected to play a leading role in 
dismantling climate change regulations. Since the Supreme Court 
decision in Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 ruled that carbon dioxide and 
other greenhouse gases are dangerous air pollutants, OAR is the office 
that accepted the endangerment finding and developed the Clean Power 
Plan to address carbon pollution.
  Given the Trump administration's own admission--or lack of 
suppression--in the latest update to the National Climate Assessment 
``that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially 
emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed 
warming since the mid-20th century,'' it should be common sense to 
nominate and confirm Administrators who care about our environment and 
our future, including acting on climate change. It is inexcusable to 
confirm those who disagree with that. I am not convinced that Mr. 
Wehrum will act on carbon pollution or any other air pollutant.
  It would take an extraordinarily independent Assistant Administrator 
to resist the current course at the EPA under EPA Administrator Scott 
Pruitt.

[[Page S7082]]

We know that we have a challenge at the top. We need as the person to 
head this Agency a person of integrity who will stand up for what 
science tells us we need to do in protecting air quality. I would argue 
that Mr. Wehrum is not that person.
  Let me go over some of the challenges we face.
  For example, in January of 2017, the EPA issued itself a 6-month 
extension to respond to Maryland's Good Neighbor petition. The petition 
alleges that 36 powerplants in five neighboring States are preventing 
Maryland from meeting its own obligations under the Clean Air Act. That 
deadline expired with no EPA action on the petition.
  On September 27, 2017, Maryland filed suit against the EPA.
  On October 5 of this year, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a 
similar lawsuit because pollution from powerplants is a source of 
nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.
  On October 27, 2017, the EPA denied a separate Maryland petition 
asking the EPA to add nine States to the Ozone Transport Region, 
alleging that these States contribute to the violation of the 2008 
ozone national ambient air quality standards.
  In its response to the petition, the EPA determined that expanding 
the Ozone Transport Region is ``not appropriate at this time'' because 
existing rules will achieve reductions in emissions. The EPA's response 
states that ``better-targeted approaches, such as those under the Clean 
Air Act's good neighbor provision, would be more effective in 
addressing the 2008 ozone targets.''
  The EPA's reasoning to deny the Ozone Transport Region petition--that 
existing rules will adequately address transported pollution--is 
predicated on the sincere implementation of those rules. In fact, 
Maryland did utilize--we did utilize--a ``better targeted approach.'' 
Maryland filed a Good Neighbor petition last November that was ignored 
for 1 year, prompting the lawsuit against the EPA.
  Based on his professional history and testimony, I do not have reason 
to believe that Mr. Wehrum will ensure that existing rules will 
adequately address air pollution. While he worked at the EPA during the 
George W. Bush administration, Mr. Wehrum attempted to direct the 
Agency's air requirements to favor markets, earning praise from 
industry groups he would later represent in private practice. How can 
we ask Mr. Wehrum to objectively administer the Clean Air Act after a 
career spent on one side?
  Mr. Wehrum has 20-plus years working for the industry as a lobbyist. 
He has a record of ignoring science in the recommendations that he 
made. There are examples of where he absolutely disagreed with expert 
groups--just to give one example, the Academy of American 
Pediatricians' assessment on mercury and air toxins submissions. Mr. 
Wehrum took issue and disagreed with their findings.
  He was seen as an unacceptable choice in 2007 when he was nominated 
to lead the same Agency by President Bush, and his nomination was 
withdrawn over Democratic opposition. So this is not the first time we 
have had a chance to deal with Mr. Wehrum for this position. In the 
interim, he has only continued his work to advance industry by 
advocating for weakening the Clean Air Act.
  I will continue to stand up for the rights of Marylanders and all 
Americans to air that is safe to breathe and a climate that is livable, 
and all of us can help in that regard by rejecting this nominee.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.