[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 182 (Wednesday, November 8, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7122-S7123]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF WILLIAM WEHRUM

  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, we have a very important role in this 
Senate--to provide advice and consent on nominees. Our forefathers, who 
wrote the Constitution, envisioned that this power would be used rarely 
because a President, knowing this power existed, would nominate highly 
suitable people for the post that they were intended to occupy. But we 
haven't seen highly suitable people coming through this Chamber this 
year. In fact, we have seen one person after another fabulously 
unsuited for the office or position to which they were nominated.
  We saw Scott Pruitt, who took on and attacked regulations designed to 
create clean air across this country time after time, in a very close 
association with the fossil fuel industry that wanted to allow more 
particulates, more particulates that cause a tremendous amount of 
health damage in this country.
  We saw Betsy DeVos come through this Chamber, an individual who was 
nominated to be Secretary of Public Education but had never stepped 
inside a public school, didn't respect public schools, hadn't had 
children in public schools, hadn't volunteered in public schools, and 
wanted to decimate public schools. The best thing we could have done 
for public schools would have been to turn down that nomination, but 
this Chamber said: Boy, you know, we are going to do everything we can 
to damage public education.
  Many of us stood up against that and said: No, let's fight for 
someone who can make public education better, not tear it down. But 
that is not what we got.
  Now we have another individual to be considered on the floor of the 
Senate, Bill Wehrum. Bill Wehrum was nominated to head EPA's Office of 
Air and Radiation. Bill Wehrum has made a career out of working for 
powerful special interests and attacking any effort to make the air 
cleaner. Is that a person suitable for this role of protecting the air 
we breathe and making it better, someone who has sought to make it 
worse?
  During the nomination hearing, I put up a very simple chart. I wanted 
to understand his thoughts about what was driving climate disruption. I 
put up a chart showing what NASA data showed for the solar impact, 
solar flares, and so forth, about which sometimes people say: Well, 
maybe it is solar flares that are causing the warming of the planet. 
NASA had data that showed a flat line on that and then a rising 
temperature.
  I said: Is there any sign of correlation between these two lines?
  His response was: Well, what do you mean? It is correlation.
  He didn't have any understanding of the basics of how to compare one 
thing to another.
  I put up another chart. The other chart showed all of the activities 
that are considered to be ones that might contribute to global warming, 
that are not manmade activities, things like the solar flares and 
volcanic activity. Again, the NASA data showed a flat line and the 
rising temperature.

[[Page S7123]]

  I said: Does there appear to be any correlation between this flat 
line and this rise in temperature?
  He again said: I just don't understand the data. I can't really 
comment on that.
  Yet anyone with any basic ability to digest information would 
recognize that there was no correlation. You didn't have two things 
moving in the same direction.
  Then I put up this chart right here. This chart shows that same 
temperature, observe the black line, and then it shows the line for 
rising carbon dioxide. I said: Well, are these things correlated?
  Do you see any relationship between one line rising and the other 
line rising?
  Again, he refused to answer.
  How is it that we can put someone into a position who cannot even 
look at and comment on basic data, who has been a hired hand for the 
fossil fuel industry, who has fought to make our air filthier and more 
damaging to our health?
  That is the nominee we have, a nominee who has sued on behalf of very 
powerful interests--the EPA, 31 times--to try to degrade the controls 
for things like mercury, which is a potent neurotoxin that damages the 
brains of, particularly, our children. Why should we have somebody who 
wants more mercury in our air in this position to consider air quality? 
It, certainly, does not make any sense to me.
  He did have a chance to serve in this position, in an acting 
capacity, back in 2006. So he has been there before. He adopted 
guidelines on mercury emissions that had entire passages lifted word 
for word from information that had been provided by the industry. The 
industry did not want to regulate the mercury, and he just took its 
language and said that that is what we will do, that we will do what 
industry says. He was not working for the American people. He was 
working for the powerful and the privileged.
  Then he told an EPA staffer ``not to undertake the normal scientific 
and economic studies'' when crafting important rules. He instructed his 
staff not to look at the scientific information when constructing 
rules. What did he want them to look at? He wanted them to just take 
the language from industry. That is certainly not protecting the public 
interest. As the New York Times wrote, he has sought to ``elevate 
corporate interests above those of the public.''
  This is not a position in a company. This is not a position in a 
corporation. This is a position of public trust. He has failed that 
test. In fact, he has failed it so badly that, although he was 
nominated in 2006 when there was a Republican majority in this Chamber, 
his nomination was subsequently rejected by the Senate. Back then, we 
had folks who really, actually cared on both sides of the aisle far 
more about air quality. Now it seems like the enormous amount of 
funding from the Koch brothers for campaigns across the country has 
squelched any consideration from my colleagues about the quality of the 
air or the quality of our water. This nomination is, certainly, a test 
of that.
  If my colleagues do care about the quality of our air, they will act 
like their predecessors did back in 2006, and they will reject this 
nomination. An individual who has betrayed the public trust should not 
be confirmed to a position of public trust.
  Thank you.

                          ____________________