[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7104-S7106]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                               BRINK Act

  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, as we all know, President Trump is now 
in China on an important trip, where his top priority is obtaining 
China's cooperation in confronting North Korea's nuclear weapons 
program.
  While we should continue to seek China's cooperation in applying 
economic and other pressures on North Korea, we also need to send a 
very clear and strong message to banks in China and throughout the 
world that there will be a price to pay for lack of cooperation.
  That is why I am pleased that yesterday, before President Trump 
arrived in China, the Senate Banking Committee, on a unanimous basis, 
passed a bill to impose and enforce mandatory sanctions against banks 
and financial firms in China or anywhere else in the world that help to 
prop up the regime of Kim Jong Un. The bill is named the Otto Warmbier 
Banking Restrictions Involving North Korea Act, or the BRINK Act, for 
short. I introduced this bill with Senator Toomey earlier this year, 
after North Korea engaged in its threatening and provocative missile 
launches.
  I want to thank Senator Toomey for his partnership in developing the 
BRINK Act. I want to thank Mr. Crapo, chairman of the Banking 
Committee, and Ranking Member Brown for their leadership in addressing 
the North Korean threat and working to pass this bill out of the 
Banking Committee with unanimous support. I want to thank all of the 
members of the Banking Committee for their bipartisan effort on this 
matter.
  I also want to thank the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, 
Senator Corker, and the Ranking Member, Senator Cardin, for their 
bipartisan leadership in confronting the threat of North Korea, and 
also the leadership of the East Asia Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, headed by Senators Gardner and Markey. They have 
been consistent in their efforts to address the North Korean threat and 
to seek a peaceful resolution of this crisis.
  Back in August, I had the opportunity to visit South Korea, Japan, 
and China, as part of a bipartisan delegation that was led by Senator 
Markey. We had the opportunity to travel not only to the DMZ zone 
between South and North Korea but also to visit the city of Dandong, 
which is a Chinese city on the border between China and North Korea, 
along the Yalu River. That is where a lot of the cross-border trade and 
transactions between North Korea and China take place.
  The threat posed by North Korea to the United States and our allies 
is very real. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General 
Dunford, testified in September that North Korea has the capability to 
strike the United States' mainland with an intercontinental ballistic 
missile. North Korea has ramped up the pace of its ballistic missile 
tests, firing two ballistic missiles over Japan in recent months. In 
September North Korea conducted its sixth test of a nuclear weapon--the 
largest yet.
  The question is this: How do we deal with this threat?
  Way back when it came to foreign policy and national security issues, 
President Teddy Roosevelt counseled that we should ``speak softly and 
carry a big stick.'' President Trump and all of us would be wise to 
heed that advice. Bluster and overheated rhetoric not only will not 
work, but they raise the risk of miscalculation and war with North 
Korea.
  It is much better to steadily and dramatically ratchet up the 
pressure on North Korea to come to the negotiating table with the goal 
of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. That strategy has to include 
lots of elements, but an indispensable tool is putting much greater 
pressure on Pyongyang.
  Despite what many people think, North Korea is not sanctioned out. It 
is not as if we already applied and enforced maximum economic pressure 
on North Korea. In fact, our existing sanctions regime against North 
Korea is much weaker than the sanctions regime we had in place against 
Iran in the lead-up to the Iran nuclear deal. That is because the 
United States and others have not seriously gone after the foreign 
banks and firms that support the North Korean leadership and its 
cronies.
  The reality is that North Korea's economy is not as weak or isolated 
as many believe. Its annual GDP is estimated to be $40 billion, and 
China accounts for almost 90 percent of North Korea's trade. The United 
Nations has repeatedly found that North Korea evades the existing 
international sanctions effort and maintains access to the 
international financial system, primarily through a comprehensive 
network of Chinese-based front companies. North Korea relies heavily on 
this network to directly support its weapons of mass destruction and 
ballistic missile programs.
  We have no time to waste. We must sever Kim Jong Un's economic 
lifeline. That is why Senator Toomey and I have introduced the BRINK 
Act and why it received such strong support. The BRINK Act targets this 
illicit financial network by imposing mandatory sanctions on those 
doing business with North Korea.
  It sends a clear and unequivocal message to foreign banks and foreign 
firms: You can do business with North Korea or you can do business with 
the United States, but you cannot do business with both. That is the 
choice we placed before other countries with respect to Iran, and it 
helped to generate the pressure to bring Iran to the negotiating table.
  If you trade with North Korea, you will not have any access to the 
U.S. markets. This, as I indicated, is the choice that we ultimately 
gave to Iran back in 2010, and the BRINK Act is modeled after the 
sanctions laws that we applied in the case of Iran that brought them 
ultimately to the negotiating table. Our goal is to cut off North 
Korea's remaining access to the international financial system, deprive 
Kim Jong Un of the resources needed for his regime's survival, and 
create the leverage necessary for serious negotiations.

  Some critics of this approach argue that China may lash out at the 
United States or respond in kind. The gravity of the situation compels 
us to act regardless of Beijing's reaction in these circumstances. 
Simply asking China for its cooperation is not enough. It has to be 
backed up by a clear message and law from the United States that there 
are severe penalties for those who do not cooperate and do not abide

[[Page S7105]]

by the sanctions. That is what this bill is all about.
  It is also important to note that when secondary sanctions on Iran 
were put into place, the Chinese Government issued a tepid public 
protest, and then privately directed its sanctioned banks to stop 
working with Iran. In other words, after some quiet protest, they 
complied with that secondary sanctions regime on Iran.
  Moreover, Beijing claimed just this September that it is directing 
its banks to freeze any North Korean accounts--a directive which, if 
true, is long overdue. But it will be hard for China to say that we 
shouldn't take this action if it is an action they already said they 
directed their banks to take. This makes it clear that it will be in 
China's economic interests to fully enforce the sanctions on North 
Korea.
  I am clear-eyed about the challenges we face in bringing North Korea 
to the negotiating table. Previous Democratic and Republican 
administrations have failed to end North Korea's nuclear and missile 
programs, and because of this, some argue that Kim Jong Un will never 
give up his nuclear program.
  To those critics, my response is simply that we have not exhausted 
all of our options on North Korea. There is incredible leakage right 
now in the sanctions regime, and that leakage is what the BRINK Act is 
designed to address and to close the loopholes and put teeth into the 
sanctions.
  The choice between accepting a nuclear North Korea or launching some 
kind of preventive war is a false one. I strongly believe that this 
aggressive secondary sanctions regime, as part of an overall coherent 
strategy backed by our allies and the threat of force, is our best 
remaining chance of achieving a nuclear-free Korean Peninsula.
  Right now, we face no more urgent task than achieving a peaceful 
resolution on the North Korean nuclear crisis. We need clear thinking. 
We need courage. We need common sense on the choices before us. At 
stake is not just the security of those in the region but, ultimately, 
of the United States. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the 
pursuit of peace prevails in this effort.
  I ask my colleagues in the Senate to follow the lead of the Banking 
Committee in giving this a unanimous bipartisan vote in the Senate so 
we can get this to the House as soon as possible and have it signed 
into law, so that when we ask other nations for cooperation, they know 
that failing to cooperate with us is not an option, or if they do take 
that course, they will face severe economic consequences.
  So I hope the Senate will take this up without delay and that we can 
pass it and get it to the President's desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Maryland for 
his thoughtful words on North Korea.
  I come to the floor today to urge my colleagues to oppose the 
nomination of William Wehrum to lead the Office of Air and Radiation at 
the EPA.
  If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum would be responsible for implementing 
critical programs like the Renewable Fuel Standard Program and other 
key public health standards under the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Wehrum is part of a larger trend within President Trump's 
administration. Many of the nominees who are being sworn in are 
unqualified, incompetent, and have actually built their careers on 
dismantling the agencies they are now leading.
  To be clear, Mr. Wehrum's nomination represents yet another broken 
promise by President Trump--this time, to our Nation's farmers. As a 
candidate, Mr. Trump pledged to champion the RFS, a policy with broad 
bipartisan support that reduces our greenhouse gas emissions, helps us 
revive rural economies, and makes our Nation less dependent on foreign 
oil.
  Yet the President continues to surround himself with advisers intent 
on sabotaging the RFS, like Scott Pruitt, Carl Icahn, and, now, Mr. 
Wehrum. Mr. Wehrum has proven, time and again, that he is not a friend 
of the Renewable Fuel Standard Program.
  He sued the biofuels industries--not once, not twice, not three 
times, but at least four times--representing groups like the American 
Petroleum Institute which are strong opponents of the RFS. During his 
nomination hearings, Mr. Wehrum refused to commit to supporting the 
RFS, claiming he was ``unfamiliar'' with the program. He wouldn't even 
acknowledge the unprecedented attacks launched on the biofuel 
industries by this administration.

  If you support the RFS, as Illinois farmers and I do, it should be 
obvious that the right thing to do is to oppose Mr. Wehrum. This is not 
about having blanket opposition to President Trump's nominees; this is 
about our national security, our rural communities, and our 
environment.
  I have already fought a war over oil, and I would rather run my car 
on American-grown corn and soybeans than oil from the Middle East. Our 
farmers deserve better than a President who makes campaign promises to 
protect the RFS in Iowa but will not honor them when he gets to the 
White House.
  I understand that Administrator Pruitt has written a letter to my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle regarding a pending petition 
requesting to move the ``point of obligation'' and a rulemaking on 
renewable volumetric obligations. Both of these decisions, as 
Administrator Pruitt's letter states, will be final in the coming days. 
That is why I am calling on my colleagues to simply hold Mr. Wehrum's 
nomination until after EPA finalizes these decisions.
  There is no rush to confirm Mr. Wehrum this week. Better yet, let's 
oppose his nomination altogether.
  I am also concerned that he will gut key public health protections 
that we all rely on to protect our families and the air we breathe. One 
of the most serious responsibilities I have, as both a U.S. Senator and 
a mother, is to protect children and families from harmful pollutants 
and to make sure the air they breathe is safe from toxic chemicals.
  After reviewing Bill Wehrum's previous work in the Office of Air and 
Radiation, it is clear that he made dismantling the Clean Air Act--and 
all of the air pollution safeguards and public health protections 
guaranteed by it--one of his top priorities. In that office, he 
actively fought to roll back commonsense safeguards against lead, fine 
particulate pollution, and ozone smog. But he didn't stop there. He 
even led efforts to weaken standards designed to reduce emissions of 
mercury--one of the most deadly, toxic pollutants in the world--from 
coal-fired powerplants. Bill Wehrum wasn't looking out for us; he was 
looking out for the fossil fuel industry.
  When Mr. Wehrum was originally nominated for this position under the 
Bush administration, the Senate had the good sense to reject his 
nomination. He was never confirmed, and I hope we do not confirm him 
now.
  Again, I urge all my colleagues to oppose Mr. Wehrum's nomination 
and, instead, support our farmers, our children, and our families.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Like the Senator from Illinois, I rise to voice my opposition to the 
nomination of Bill Wehrum to serve as the Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency.
  The Office of Air and Radiation oversees matters that are critical to 
human and environmental health, specifically, air and radiation but 
also climate change, air quality, and vehicle emissions.
  If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum would be responsible for these immensely 
important issues, which require putting the health of our citizens 
above industry interests. Given this, I don't know why the Senate would 
confirm him for this position.
  Mr. Wehrum has already served in this role in an acting capacity 
during the Bush administration. His confirmation was blocked by the 
Senate in 2006. His prior tenure shows that he will not fulfill the 
mission of the EPA to protect human health and the environment. In 
fact, he has a record of putting corporate profits before the well-
being of citizens.
  During his tenure in the Bush administration, Mr. Wehrum rolled back 
clean air safeguards that protect public

[[Page S7106]]

health on 27 occasions. His actions were challenged in court for not 
fulfilling the requirements of the Clean Air Act, and 27 times the 
court ruled against Mr. Wehrum.
  One particular issue that he was involved in was mercury pollution. 
Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA has to reduce hazardous air pollutants 
like mercury, which is particularly harmful to children. Instead of 
protecting this population from mercury pollution, a neurotoxin, Mr. 
Wehrum decided to advance the interests of polluters.
  During his tenure, Mr. Wehrum also led efforts to prevent EPA from 
addressing climate pollution. Fortunately, the Supreme Court eventually 
ruled in favor of regulating greenhouse gases, forcing the Agency to 
take action.
  After the Senate blocked his nomination in 2006, Mr. Wehrum decided 
he would undermine the mission of the Agency on behalf of polluters. In 
his current role as a corporate attorney, he has sued the EPA multiple 
times on behalf of clients in the oil, gas, coal, and chemical 
industries to undermine protections that safeguard public health and 
the environment. He has used his current position to attack the 
renewable fuel standard, which requires biofuels to be blended with 
gasoline--something the big oil companies hate because it means serious 
competition for dirty oil. So as an attorney for the American Petroleum 
Institute--the trade association that represents ExxonMobil, BP, and a 
number of other oil and gas giants--Mr. Wehrum sued the EPA at least 
four times in an effort to weaken the RFS, the renewable fuel standard. 
This is deeply troubling, considering that if he gets this job, he will 
be in charge of administering the RFS, which will allow him to 
implement his clear agenda. He has done nothing to lead us to believe 
he would do anything but side with the giant oil companies.
  The facts are clear. The RFS boosts energy security, it creates rural 
jobs, and it is better for the environment than oil. You are never 
going to see an ethanol spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
  Colleagues on both sides of the aisle agree that despite this 
bipartisan support, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt has reduced advanced 
biofuel blending targets for 2018. Now, with Mr. Wehrum's nomination, I 
have even less confidence in this administration upholding Congress's 
intent on the RFS.
  He also has a history of willful ignorance of science. When asked 
whether he believes that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities 
are the main drivers of climate change, Mr. Wehrum stated that he 
believes it is an open question--an answer that runs contrary to the 
conclusion of 97 percent of climate scientists and runs counter to the 
``National Climate Assessment'' that was released by this 
administration just last week.
  Emissions from fossil fuel-fired powerplants are some of the main 
contributors to climate change. We know this. At the Office of Air and 
Radiation, Mr. Wehrum would oversee the repeal of standards that reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, the Clean Power Plan. 
He would also be in charge of crafting a weaker replacement, if any.
  Let me be clear. A weak standard is an affront to the public health 
and safety of future generations.
  To overcome the challenge of climate change, we must transform our 
economy to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If we don't, 
Americans and future generations will pay an unacceptable price. But 
rather than driving innovation and pushing us to overcome this 
challenge, the administration has ordered a retreat. You can see that 
retreat everywhere, in a budget that would gut funding for science and 
innovation, in an EPA that values industry profits over the welfare of 
the public.
  The 23rd annual United Nations climate change conference is taking 
place right now in Bonn, Germany. Two years ago, 195 nations came 
together to sign the Paris climate agreement in a historic display of 
the power of collective human will, and they did it because of U.S. 
leadership.
  Now contrast that to earlier this year, when President Trump ordered 
the United States to retreat. He announced that he was pulling us out 
of the Paris climate agreement.
  Yesterday, Syria announced that it would ratify the agreement. They 
were the last remaining nation to not be a part of this agreement. We 
now stand alone as the only country in the world choosing not to be 
part of the global effort to combat climate change.
  Let's be clear. The President has not only ceded leadership, but he 
has isolated the United States from the global community. He has put us 
in this dangerous situation simply to protect short-term profits of the 
fossil fuel industry.
  Mr. Wehrum would exacerbate this administration's wrong-headed 
approach. He is anti-science, anti-public health, anti-environment. 
That is why the Senate blocked his nomination in 2006. The Senate 
recognized then that he wasn't fit for the job. He is even less fit 
today.
  I oppose his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Thank you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________