[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 183 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7126-S7132]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Republican Tax Plan

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, later today the Senate Republicans will 
release their version of the tax bill. The bill will not include a 
single idea of Democrats in the Senate. Not a single Democrat has had 
any input into this bill. It was constructed entirely behind closed 
doors by the majority party, who have no intention of negotiating with 
Democrats because they locked themselves into a partisan process that 
only requires a majority vote.
  They are trying to rush it through this Chamber with reckless speed. 
Why? Because my friends on the other side know that the longer their 
bill is out there for the public to see, the less the public likes it. 
Their only hopes of passing it are to rush it through before anyone can 
grapple with the stunning hypocrisy at the center of their plan.
  The Republican majority has repeatedly promised a middle-class tax 
bill, but instead, they have concocted a bill grounded in tax cuts for 
big corporations and the very rich. They actually hurt middle-class 
people because they need to give those big breaks for the wealthiest.
  While promising that their plan gives ``everyone a tax cut''--that is 
what Speaker Ryan said again today--multiple independent analyses 
conclude that the House Republican tax plan would increase taxes on 
millions of middle-class families, contrary to what Republicans 
promised and what Donald Trump has promised. They said: No middle-class 
people will get an increase. This is aimed at helping the middle class.
  But the vast majority of the help goes to the wealthiest and biggest 
corporations. A New York Times analysis found that next year the House 
Republican plan would cause taxes to go up on one-third of all middle-
class families. By 2026 taxes will go up on nearly half of all middle-
class families.
  So even if you come from a State with a lower tax rate--a red State--
it is probably a good bet that a quarter of the middle-class families 
will get a tax increase. I think the lowest I saw was 17 percent for 
West Virginia.
  So this hurts middle-class people, and it hurts certain middle-class 
people much more than others--people who have student loans, people who 
have high medical expenses, people who come from States where there are 
large property taxes, people who have big mortgages. These are middle-
class people. They should not get a tax increase.
  Mark Mazer, director of the independent Tax Policy Center, said:

       You could create a plan that just cuts taxes for middle-
     class people. That's not what this is.

  That is him, not me. It is what Republicans promised people.
  Now, we will see what the Senate comes up with today. But several 
Republican Senators have already confirmed that the Senate bill has the 
same structure as the House bill, and, in at least one way, we know it 
is worse for middle-class families than the House bill because the 
House bill will reduce the value of State and local deductions by 70 
percent, while the Senate bill eliminates it entirely. My friend from 
Ohio, Senator Portman, confirmed that a few days ago on FOX Business.
  This should be a three-alarm fire for every House Republican in 
California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Illinois, 
Colorado, and Minnesota. Senate Republicans are telling House 
Republicans there will be no compromise on State and local 
deductibility. It is full repeal or bust because Senate Republicans 
need the revenue raised by ending this popular middle-class deduction.
  There are several deficit hawks in the Senate. We have stricter 
budget rules for reconciliation. If the Senate tax plan includes cuts 
to the corporate rate, the pass-through rate, and on upper tax 
brackets--which dramatically increase the deficit--they will need the 
revenue from the full repeal of State and local to make the numbers 
work.
  So I say to every one of my Republican colleagues in the House who 
comes from a suburban district: This bill could be your political doom. 
Don't let the special interests, don't let the party leadership push 
you into doing something that is bad for so many of your constituents. 
You will pay a price.
  House Republicans should kill the bill now if they want to have any 
hope of stopping the full repeal of the State and local deduction. They 
can't hide behind the so-called compromise in the House bill. It is 
nothing more than a temporary fig leaf for full and permanent repeal.
  As I said, if House Republicans don't kill it now, it will come back 
to haunt them. The overwhelming Democratic turnout in suburban 
districts in Virginia, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania should send shivers 
down the spine of House Republicans who represent those districts. 
Voting to repeal the State and local deduction--walloping the middle-
class and upper middle-class suburbs--would be political suicide, all 
this to bow down to the special big interests of large corporations.
  Even with the compromise, the House numbers are devastating. 
Representative MacArthur said he was shown information that shows the 
compromise is good for his district, and he went from a no to a 
``leans'' yes, according to POLITICO.
  Representative MacArthur, go look at the real numbers.

[[Page S7127]]

  Forty-three percent of taxpayers in Representative MacArthur's 
district take the State and local deduction, for an average of $11,987 
per deduction. Over half of the value of these deductions is not the 
property tax at all. It is State and local income taxes, which will be 
taken away under the plan.
  Then, according to IRS data, there are a good number for whom the 
property taxes are over $10,000, meaning the compromise still wouldn't 
help them. So I would not, if I were Representative MacArthur, listen 
to the numbers the Republican leadership is giving him. I would do my 
own independent analysis because I believe he would find them to be a 
lot worse than what the leadership is telling him.
  I say to my other Republican colleagues: Don't fall for those quick 
numbers. Go do your own looking at this. It is a lot worse than your 
leadership is telling you.
  One final point here on taxes, for some reason the conventional 
wisdom on the Republican side is that because of the stunning depth of 
their losses in the recent elections, there is even a greater need to 
pass the tax plan. We have to do this or we will fall apart, they said. 
It makes no sense. They are misreading the public.
  Ed Gillespie, for all of his divisive ads, also ran a traditional 
establishment campaign. The linchpin of his campaign was the $1,000 tax 
cut for everybody. It got him nowhere. Exit polls from the Virginia 
election showed that the No. 1 issue on voters' minds was healthcare, 
and they voted overwhelmingly Democratic. Yet, amazingly, Republicans 
may repeal the individual mandate as part of their tax bill. How do 
they think that is going to fly?
  Despite the spin from Republican leaders, passing this plan will not 
help Republicans climb out of the hole they are in. It will bury them 
deeper. Maybe if they pass the bill, they will not say they are in 
disarray for the moment, but already this bill has had a miserable 
rollout. You know that when a party rolls out their No. 1 legislative 
plan, there should be trumpets and bands, but the public knows already 
that the bill favors the wealthy. The public knows that middle-class 
people get a tax increase.
  So at best, the rollout of this bill has been mixed. I would say it 
has been negative, and the American people agree because many more 
people are against this bill than are for it, according to all of the 
polls. Passing a partisan tax plan that favors the wealthy and raises 
taxes on millions of middle-class and upper middle-class families in 
the suburbs is no political cure. It is political poison.
  The real way to win back the esteem of the American people would be 
to put partisanship aside, put a giant tax cut for the wealthy on the 
shelf, and come work with Democrats on real bipartisan reform.
  Mr. President, I would also like to just announce my strong 
opposition to Mr. Wehrum to the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.
  While working in senior roles at the Office during the Bush 
administration, Mr. Wehrum led the efforts to weaken clean air 
protections. During his tenure, courts ruled that the Agency violated 
the Clean Air Act 30 times. Mr. Wehrum represented industry clients 
against the EPA 31 times since 2008.
  He does not deserve to be in this position. Anyone who cares about 
the lungs of their children should not want Mr. Wehrum in that 
position. I hope we will get some bipartisan support to reject this 
really awful nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to continue to share with our 
colleagues the reasons I oppose the nomination of Bill Wehrum to be 
EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Throughout his 
career, Mr. Wehrum has clearly shown he is dismissive of the science 
that is the core of EPA's actions to protect public health. Nothing 
during this confirmation process has convinced me that Mr. Wehrum's 
approach will change going forward.
  I have said this before, and I will say it again because it makes Mr. 
Wehrum's priorities clear, our courts have overturned regulations that 
Mr. Wehrum helped craft while at EPA a staggering 27 times. That is 27 
times that the courts determined the rules Mr. Wehrum put in place did 
not follow the law or did not adequately protect public safety--27 
times.
  In one of those instances, the courts faulted EPA's lack of action to 
reduce mercury and toxic air pollution emissions from electric 
powerplants.
  I have worked on controlling mercury pollution since I became a 
Member of this body 17 years ago, so I would like to spend some time 
talking about this issue, mercury.
  Much of our country's ongoing efforts to clean up air pollution hinge 
on making sure every State plays by the rules and does their fair share 
to reduce air pollution. That includes dangerous toxic pollution like 
mercury. Toxic air pollution gets into the air we breathe, gets into 
the food we eat, builds up in our bodies without our knowledge and can 
lead to cancer, to mental impairment, and even to death.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Wehrum has spent much of his career fighting to 
dismantle the Federal environmental protections on which any State--my 
State, your State, so many other States--depends in order to clean up 
toxic air pollution.
  Twenty-seven is also the number of years ago that President George 
Herbert Walker Bush signed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 into 
law. Nearly three decades ago, Congress had enough scientific data to 
know that mercury and other air toxics, such as lead and arsenic, were 
hazardous air pollutants that harmed people's health and, as a result, 
should be regulated by the EPA.
  The lawmakers--including myself--who sent the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990 to the desk of a Republican President thought that 
the Nation's largest emitters of mercury and air toxics would soon be 
required to do their part and clean up. Unfortunately, it took 22 
additional years for the EPA to issue the Mercury and Air Toxic Rule, 
which finally, 5 years ago, called for reducing mercury and other air 
toxics from coal-fired plants, our Nation's largest source of mercury 
emissions.
  The EPA modeled the rule after successful steps that States across 
our country had already taken. The Agency required coal plants to 
install existing affordable technology that could reduce mercury and 
toxic emissions by 90 percent.
  Today our Nation's power utilities are meeting the mercury and air 
toxics standards--they are meeting it--and electricity prices have not 
gone up; they have gone down. Some of you might find that hard to 
believe, but it is true. They have actually gone down.
  You might ask why it took the EPA 22 years to address our Nation's 
largest source of mercury and air toxics emissions. That is a fair 
question. The answer, in part, is that Mr. Wehrum was working at the 
EPA and had the responsibility to assume this life-enhancing--if not 
lifesaving--task, a responsibility, sadly, he largely chose to ignore.
  In the early 2000s, under Mr. Wehrum's leadership, the EPA decided to 
take a detour when it came to regulating mercury and air toxics from 
powerplants. Mr. Wehrum refused to follow the recommendation from the 
National Academy of Sciences and instead reversed an earlier EPA 
decision. He determined it was neither appropriate nor necessary to 
regulate powerplants under the air toxics section of the Clean Air Act. 
Instead, he chose a different path, helping to write a rule allowing 
powerplants to pollute more and for a longer time under a mercury cap-
and-trade program.
  In his push to make regulations on mercury emissions less protective, 
Mr. Wehrum promulgated a rule that industry not only supported but 
helped to write. In January 2004, the Washington Post reported that 
language written for industry by Mr. Wehrum's old law firm--Latham & 
Watkins--appeared word for word in the proposed rule published in the 
Federal Register--word for word.
  The story reported that ``a side-by-side comparison of one of the 
three proposed rules and the memorandums prepared by Latham & Watkins 
shows that at least a dozen paragraphs were lifted, sometimes verbatim, 
from the industry suggestions.''
  After Mr. Wehrum's mercury rule was finalized, the Federal courts 
found that EPA had exaggerated the rule's benefits and, as a result, 
the rule was

[[Page S7128]]

overturned. In fact, the EPA lost so badly that the deciding judge said 
that under the leadership of Mr. Wehrum, the Agency deployed ``the 
logic of the Queen of Hearts, substituting the EPA's desires for the 
plain text of the law.''
  So EPA had to start all over again because Mr. Wehrum ignored science 
and deferred to industry. What makes that delay process so egregious is 
that our Nation's children were exposed to toxic air emissions from 
powerplants for an additional decade for no good reason.
  In 2011, the Obama administration finally issued a new rule--the 
mercury and air toxic standard rule--that protects our children, 
protects our health, and protects our lakes and our rivers. What is 
more, industry is easily able to meet the rule's targets, and our 
Nation is already seeing the benefits, but these health benefits do not 
seem to matter to Mr. Wehrum, who is still fighting for delays in 
mercury and air toxic emission reductions.
  In fact, while representing his industry clients, he has supported a 
lawsuit against the mercury and air toxic rule. Under his leadership, 
Mr. Wehrum's law firm has been arguing that it is not ``appropriate and 
necessary'' for the EPA to regulate mercury and other air toxic 
emissions. Not appropriate and necessary? That is what he says.
  When I asked Mr. Wehrum about his time at the EPA and his work to 
delay mercury regulations, he was elusive. He seemed to have a 
selective memory with respect to the actions he did or did not take 
when he last served at the EPA.
  When I asked him if he would commit not to weaken the mercury and air 
toxic rule if confirmed, he basically refused to answer. However, to 
his colleagues, he is very clear regarding his thoughts on the mercury 
and air toxic rule. In a trade press article published just 1 year ago, 
Mr. Wehrum said: ``From our perspective, it's a regulation that made no 
sense and wasn't justified.''
  Mr. Wehrum believes there is no justification for EPA to regulate the 
largest source of mercury and air toxic pollution--pollution that 
pediatricians tell us damage children's brains and could affect up to 
600,000 newborns every year--600,000 newborns every year.
  Mr. Wehrum believes there is no justification for EPA to regulate the 
largest source of mercury and air toxics pollution--pollution that 
settles in our lakes, our rivers, streams, accumulates in our fish, and 
makes them too dangerous to eat.
  Mr. Wehrum believes there is no justification for EPA to regulate the 
largest source of mercury and air toxics pollution, even though power 
companies have already bought, paid for, and installed the control 
technology on all powerplants without hiking electricity rates.
  This information should be quite concerning to all of us, to all of 
our colleagues--I don't care where we come from--especially those who 
have supported the mercury and air toxic rule, as many of us have.
  If confirmed, Mr. Wehrum would be part of the review of the mercury 
and air toxic rule that Mr. Pruitt promises to undertake. Think about 
that.
  This is just one of the many clear examples in which Mr. Wehrum 
continues to support polluters over science and doctors, even going so 
far as to give polluters the pen to write the regulations they would 
have to follow. Unfortunately, there are many more.
  Mr. Wehrum also spearheaded regulations when he was last at EPA that 
weakened air protections for national parks. The courts threw out those 
efforts to weaken the so-called regional haze rule, compelling the 
Obama administration to clean up his mess and provide this protection 
for iconic parks like the Grand Canyon and the Great Smoky Mountains 
National Park because, again, Mr. Wehrum did not follow science or the 
law.
  Nonetheless, Mr. Wehrum continues to pursue ongoing litigation 
against EPA's efforts to reduce national park pollution. Last year, Mr. 
Wehrum declared in an article: ``EPA used the regional haze programs to 
impose very stringent, and from our perspective, unwarranted emissions 
requirements.''
  Mr. Wehrum also has a long history of ignoring climate change science 
and the laws that regulate carbon emissions. While at the EPA, Mr. 
Wehrum was critical of the Agency's decision to deny the State of 
California a waiver to impose stricter vehicle standards to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions as well as costs for consumers. Mr. Wehrum 
personally pushed for this action against recommendations of the career 
staff who did not believe the George W. Bush administration political 
appointee had a legal basis to deny California's request.
  I am here today to remind Mr. Wehrum and all those who continue to 
delay action to control greenhouse gas emissions under the premise that 
more information about how the climate is changing or whether or not 
human beings are exacerbating the effects of climate change--the facts 
are in. The science is clear.
  Even if he doesn't want to believe the numbers and the data--Mr. 
Wehrum lives in Delaware, as do I. We run races together, sometimes 
ride the same trains back and forth between Wilmington and Washington. 
However, in the State in which we both reside, for us, the effects of 
climate change are evident. In our State, we are the Nation's lowest 
lying State. Parts of our State are sinking while at the same time the 
waters are rising along our shores.
  By his own admission, while at the EPA, Mr. Wehrum provided support 
to the government litigation team in a famous case: Massachusetts v. 
EPA. That team argued that greenhouse gases are not pollutants that 
could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. It is not just me who 
disagreed with Mr. Wehrum in this instance, the Supreme Court of the 
United States disagreed as well.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Wehrum's views on climate change seem to be the 
same as they were 15 years ago. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling in 
Massachusetts v. EPA, which affirmed EPA's authority to regulate 
greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, Mr. Wehrum insisted in 2013 
that he ``continues to believe, that Congress never intended the EPA to 
address an issue such as climate change under the Clean Air Act.''
  In his nomination hearing before the EPW Committee, Mr. Wehrum 
claimed that the climate is changing, but much is unknown--much is 
unknown--about why and how fast those changes are occurring.
  I could go on for a while, as you can imagine, but suffice it to say, 
these views of Mr. Wehrum are not just curious, they are dangerous. 
They are dangerous. Ignoring environmental health science just because 
you would rather not put protections in place hurts all of us in the 
end but especially the most vulnerable among us. Mr. Wehrum's time at 
EPA is at odds with the public health mission of that Agency.
  All of the failed regulations Mr. Wehrum worked on created greater 
uncertainty for business and left the lives of the most vulnerable 
populations at risk.
  I would like to close by reflecting on why I think today's vote is so 
important. My wife Martha and I go to a Presbyterian Church in 
Wilmington most Sundays. Earlier this year, on an especially lovely 
spring morning--a morning I had gone out for a run--we joined our 
congregation in singing a number of hymns, and one of them began with 
these words:

     For the beauty of the Earth,
     For the glory of the skies,
     For the love which from our birth
     Over and around us lies,
     Lord of all, to Thee we raise
     This our hymn of grateful praise.

  It is a powerful passage, and we should let these words really and 
truly resonate, especially on this morning.
  Scripture reminds us repeatedly to love our neighbors as ourselves. 
We know that and call that the Golden Rule. It appears in every major 
religion in the world--I don't care if you are Christian, Jewish, 
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist. I don't care what your faith is, there is a 
Golden Rule in your Sacred Scriptures. In our faith, we call it the 
Golden Rule.

  Also found in those pages is another sacred obligation that we are to 
serve as stewards of this planet to which we have been entrusted, and 
we have a moral obligation to do so. I know a great many of our 
colleagues here in the Senate agree that we have a responsibility to 
care for the world around us and the people who live in it. Most 
Americans believe that. We all have an obligation to protect the health 
of our children and our families

[[Page S7129]]

and the world in which we live. We have an obligation to ensure that we 
have clean air to breathe--perhaps the most basic, most important right 
of all. For me, this is not only my responsibility as a parent and as 
an official elected to serve the people of Delaware; it is a moral 
imperative, a moral calling.
  Americans deserve EPA leaders who believe in sound science. Americans 
need EPA leaders who will listen to the medical experts when it comes 
to our health and who will be able to strike a balance that ensures 
both a cleaner environment and a stronger economy--something we have 
done for the past 27 years since the adoption of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990.
  Moving forward with this nominee and thus allowing him to execute his 
extreme agenda once again at the EPA, especially when we have seen how 
poorly he handled that authority before, would be, in my mind, simply 
irresponsible. I do not believe Mr. Wehrum is the right fit for this 
position. I encourage my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to vote 
no on his nomination to be EPA's Assistant Administrator for Air.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the vote on 
confirmation on the Wehrum nomination, there be an additional 2 minutes 
of debate, equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Strange). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to oppose the nomination of 
William Wehrum to be the next Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation at the Environmental Protection Agency. This job is really 
pretty straightforward. The person in this job must fight for the right 
of every American to breathe clean air. But here is the problem: Mr. 
Wehrum has dedicated his career to the service of corporate polluters. 
Like President Trump and Administrator Pruitt, in a fight between hard-
working families and well-paid corporate polluters, Mr. Wehrum sides 
with the corporate polluters every single time.
  President Trump promised to ``drain the swamp'' in DC. But, 
seemingly, with every week, this Republican-controlled Senate approves 
yet another one of the President's corporate insiders to advance Big 
Oil and Big Coal's dirty wish list. The decision to nominate Mr. Wehrum 
is no exception. He is another conflict-ridden, climate-dismissing 
Trump nominee who has made a career of putting corporate profits ahead 
of hard-working families who depend on the EPA to have their backs.
  Some of my Republican colleagues have argued that Mr. Wehrum has 
extensive experience serving at the EPA under the Bush administration, 
and that is true. Let's take a look at his experience. Mr. Wehrum 
fought to keep States from setting their own higher vehicle emissions 
standards in order to try to keep the air cleaner. He played a key role 
in the Bush administration's insistence that the EPA has no 
responsibility to combat climate change--a view that the Supreme Court 
rejected in 2007 in Massachusetts v. EPA. When the Bush EPA was 
required by law to propose a rule limiting mercury emissions from 
powerplants, Mr. Wehrum's influence helped tilt the rule to benefit big 
coal. In fact, several paragraphs of the proposed rule were lifted 
verbatim from memos provided by the same pro-coal lobbying firm that 
Mr. Wehrum had worked at before joining the EPA.
  The egregious inadequacy of the proposed rule and its blatant 
disregard for rulemaking processes led to 8 years of unnecessary delay 
in limiting toxic mercury emissions. There were 8 additional years of 
an estimated 130,000 asthma attacks, 8 years of 11,000 premature 
deaths--all potentially avoidable if Mr. Wehrum and his colleagues had 
just listened to the science and made the protection of human life more 
important than the protection of corporate interests.
  During his tenure at the EPA, looking out for big corporate polluters 
was standard practice for Mr. Wehrum. In 27 separate cases--27 cases--
Federal courts found that the regulations that Mr. Wehrum helped write 
contradicted or violated the Clean Air Act and failed to protect public 
health.
  Mr. Wehrum has a lot of experience--the weak-kneed experience of 
someone kissing up to big corporate interests.
  In reflecting on his time at the EPA, Mr. Wehrum said: ``I'm a much 
better lawyer now than when I first joined the agency. To really get to 
know how the agency works and how it ticks, I think that is very 
valuable.''
  Yes, valuable, sure, but valuable for whom? Valuable for small towns 
across America that desperately need more champions fighting in their 
corner? Valuable for our coastal communities and farmers dealing with 
the tangible effects of climate change? No. He meant valuable for his 
own bank account.
  Mr. Wehrum describes his time working at the EPA as being ``very 
valuable'' because it allowed him to ``be effective in generating 
business and clients.''
  I guess he thinks this latest trip through the revolving door will be 
even better for helping him drum up business from future polluters.
  And why wouldn't he? Since leaving the EPA in 2007, Mr. Wehrum has 
been one of the go-to lawyers for big corporate polluters looking to 
get off easy or to save a buck at the public's expense. In at least 31 
lawsuits against the EPA, Mr. Wehrum has fought to diminish Federal 
climate policy, to roll back limits on toxic mercury emissions, and to 
undermine public health protections. From what I can tell, not once has 
he chosen to use his valuable experience at the EPA to fight for 
stronger clean air protections that benefit our children and our 
seniors who suffer the most from toxic emissions.
  When deciding whether someone is qualified for public service, sure, 
experience matters. But it matters who you fight for--whether it is a 
lawyer before the courts or as a senior appointee in the 
administration. It matters whether you have a demonstrated commitment 
to serving the public interest or the narrow corporate interests of 
rich companies.
  Mr. Wehrum is not a person who fights for the moms and dads who know 
the terror of a child having an asthma attack. He is not a person who 
fights for the low-income and often minority communities that are 
literally choking under a cloud of industry toxins. He is not a person 
who fights for our communities that are suffering from the growing 
impact of climate change. No, he is a person who does the lucrative 
bidding of corporate DC insiders, both in government and outside 
government, and then he leaves American families to just suffer the 
consequences.
  This administration, this Republican Congress, and nominees like Mr. 
Wehrum are experts at ignoring the facts, but they can't change those 
facts. Our planet is getting hotter. Our seas are rising at an alarming 
rate. Our coasts and islands are threatened by devastating storms. Our 
farms and forests are threatened by droughts and wildfires that are 
becoming so common across this country that they barely even make the 
evening news.
  The effects of man-made climate change are all around us. Things will 
only get worse if we don't do something about it. We should never hand 
our government over to wealthy and powerful companies that put their 
own profits ahead of people. We certainly shouldn't put someone in 
charge of our clean air program that will not put the health, the 
safety, and the future of the American people ahead of short-term 
corporate profits.
  Make no mistake, President Trump wants a fight. Administrator Pruitt 
wants a fight. William Wehrum wants a fight. And we will give them that 
fight because the American people will fight to protect the health of 
our children and our grandchildren, to build a clean energy economy, 
and to safeguard the future of our planet.
  The American people deserve someone who will fight in their corner, 
and that is not William Wehrum.
  I yield the floor.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, it has been a sorry spectacle for 
Americans to witness what the polluting industries are doing, with the 
full connivance of the Trump administration,

[[Page S7130]]

to the Environmental Protection Agency--an Agency that enjoys broad 
popularity among the American people but is obviously a thorn in the 
side of big polluters who make very big campaign contributions and 
therefore have inordinately big influence here in Congress.
  The creep show parade of nominees to the offices responsible for 
protecting the public's health at EPA is nothing short of astounding. 
It is an array of cranks, charlatans, hacks, lobbyists, and toadies in 
really unprecedented measure in the history of our country. It seems 
that at this point the key and only credential for appointment to the 
Environmental Protection Agency is that you are reliably pro-industry 
and reliably anti-public health.
  We are facing a nomination for one of these characters, whose name is 
William Wehrum. He was previously nominated to the EPA Office of Air 
and Radiation in 2006, but even back then, his record was such a 
scandal that the White House withdrew his nomination. Now, that was 
2006. That was before Citizens United. That was before the flood of 
political power to the big polluting industries. Now, on this new 
political field, he is back, he is just as bad, and there is no hint 
that the Trump administration has any intention of withdrawing his 
nomination. He has a real problem dealing with environmental issues, 
and I think it relates to his record.
  In recent years, Mr. Wehrum has represented industry in 39 Federal 
appellate cases opposing cleaner air protection. He is 39 to 0 in terms 
of taking the side of industry against clean air protections, and 31 of 
those cases involved lawsuits against EPA. So he will now be defending 
and judging cases of the type that he brought against the EPA on behalf 
of industry. Again, not one of those cases argued for better clean air 
protections. Many of them questioned air toxic standards that had been 
established by EPA. Some of the lawsuits were against rules that had to 
be rewritten by the Obama administration when EPA failed to follow the 
Clean Air Act, when a rule was thrown out by the courts for failing to 
be true to the law. So this is not a great moment for the integrity of 
government in this particular case.
  When we asked Mr. Wehrum questions--for instance, I asked him about 
carbon dioxide's role in the observable effects of climate change, and 
he replied: ``The degree to which manmade [greenhouse gas] emissions 
are contributing to climate change has not been conclusively 
determined.''
  That entire sentence hangs on one word: ``conclusively.'' So if 999 
scientists said that this is indeed conclusive but you had 1 outlier--1 
against 999--then you could argue that the degree to which manmade 
greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to climate change has not 
been conclusively determined. But in the world in which Mr. Wehrum is 
going to be making decisions, that is not a relevant standard. That is 
a standard that comes from the climate-denial talking points; it is not 
a standard that arises from the law or from the way administrative 
agencies are required to review scientific evidence.
  The distinguished Presiding Officer was an attorney general and knows 
very well that the standard for getting scientific evidence admitted in 
a court proceeding is whether it is accurate to a reasonable degree of 
certainty. There is no standard that it has to be conclusive; that is 
an imaginary prop of the fossil fuel industry to be able to address the 
fact that it is virtually unanimous science against them and there are 
only a few payroll scientists floating around to keep it from being 
conclusive.
  To a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, are manmade 
greenhouse gas emissions contributing to climate change? Without a 
doubt. Indeed, NOAA and EPA have concluded that ``carbon dioxide is the 
primary greenhouse gas that is contributing to recent climate change.'' 
That is it. And rules at an administrative agency have to pass the test 
of being based on substantial evidence, as the Presiding Officer knows, 
and not being arbitrary or capricious. In any rational world, it would 
be arbitrary and capricious to deny the vast weight of science because 
it is not 100 percent conclusive. Nobody makes decisions on that basis 
in real life.
  This, right in this individual's testimony, is a direct echo of 
fossil fuel industry talking points, fossil fuel industry propaganda, 
and it is a preview of coming attractions as to whose message he will 
be mouthing in a position of public responsibility.
  Similarly, I asked him about ozone. One of the goals of the Clean Air 
Act itself is to set standards for how much ozone there can be in the 
air. This makes a big difference to Rhode Island because Rhode Island 
is a downwind State from most of the industrial and powerplant 
emissions through the Ohio Valley, in the Midwest, and through West 
Virginia. We actually have ozone alert days in Rhode Island--ozone 
alert days, when you drive in in the morning and the drive-time radio 
is warning you that this is not a good day to be outside. It looks 
sunny. Ozone is transparent. It looks fine. It is usually warm because 
ozone is propagated in warm air. So on a warm, sunny day, you are 
driving in, it looks as if everything is fine, and you are warned that 
the elderly, small children, and people who have breathing difficulties 
or disabilities should stay indoors. That is the price Rhode Islanders 
are asked to pay for this ozone pollution we have to live with--stay 
indoors.
  Ozone standards have been in place at EPA for 45 years. For 45 years, 
EPA has regulated ozone. What did Wehrum answer when I asked him about 
ozone? ``I am not familiar with the current science on the health 
effects of ozone, so I cannot comment on your question as to the 
appropriate level of the standard.'' Really? He wants to run this 
office--the office which has been handling ozone regulation for 45 
years--and he is not familiar with the current science on the health 
effects of ozone? I think he is quite familiar with the current science 
on ozone, and in this position, he is going to be looking for ways to 
get around that science to help the ozone-emitting clients of his 
private practice.
  I asked him about the endangerment finding. The background of the 
endangerment finding is this: In Massachusetts v. Environmental 
Protection Agency, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that 
carbon pollution was, in fact, a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. 
They decided that in the Supreme Court, and that is now the law of the 
land.
  Then, pursuant to that Supreme Court determination, the EPA had to 
take a look at whether it is a dangerous pollutant. And they did. Their 
determination as to whether it is a dangerous pollutant is called an 
endangerment finding. Sure enough, EPA found that carbon dioxide being 
emitted by these fossil fuel plants is, in fact, a danger to present 
and future Americans, to this generation and to generations to come.
  Mr. Pruitt, who is one of the slyer rascals around out there, said in 
the Environment and Public Works Committee that he would not contest or 
seek to review the endangerment finding. There is an obvious reason why 
somebody who is completely in tow to the fossil fuel industry would not 
wish to revisit the endangerment finding; that is, because you would 
drop an avalanche of scientific fact on your own head. You would be 
obliged to put the phony little scrapes of climate denial that the 
fossil fuel industry funds and propagates through a whole bunch of 
front groups up against the real science that is agreed to by 
essentially every legitimate scientific organization in America, that 
is taught at every American State university in all 50 of our States, 
that has formed the basis of our Defense Department's Quadrennial 
Defense Review pointing out that climate change is a catalyst of 
conflict and a national security risk, and that is recognized and 
tracked by the National Laboratories of the United States that we fund.
  Up against the phony-baloney nonsense that is propagated by the 
fossil fuel industry, that is a rout. Of course, the last thing the 
fossil fuel industry wants is a fair contest in a fair and factual 
forum between the real science and their phony science denial. So, of 
course, Pruitt doesn't want to kick that fight off, and, therefore, he 
is now stuck with the endangerment finding.
  I asked Mr. Wehrum about the endangerment finding, since it is a 
finding related to greenhouse gases, which are subject to the Clean Air 
Act, which would be his responsibility in

[[Page S7131]]

this position at EPA. He said: I currently do not have a view on the 
endangerment finding.
  I bet he had a view when he was being paid by the Rubber 
Manufacturers Association to consider emissions of carbon dioxide; I 
bet he had a view when he was being paid by the American Forest & Paper 
Association; and I am pretty sure he had a view when he was being paid 
by the American Petroleum Institute. So this new, sudden absence of a 
view seems improbable in the extreme. It looks like the best thing he 
can say to not have to admit the real science, knowing perfectly well 
that if he actually tried to deny it, that same avalanche of real 
science would fall around his head.
  In some respects, it is tragic that we are now in a situation in 
which an agency of the U.S. Government has been handed over to the 
polluters lock, stock, and barrel. They have been given absolute sway 
to drive an industry agenda through the Agency that is supposed to be 
protecting us.
  In the balance of Pruitt and all of his little minions in this creep 
show array of appointees, all you can expect from them is the industry 
point of view, as close as they can deliver it, without stepping on any 
of the factual or legal traps that will snap shut on them if they go a 
little bit too far and actually step into a forum like a courtroom or a 
contested proceeding where they are obliged to be under oath, where 
there is a prospect of discovery, and where you have to meet the proper 
standards for administrative rulemaking, such as based on ``substantial 
evidence'' or not ``arbitrary and capricious.''
  There have been two recent descriptions that have come out that put 
the climate change problem into perspective. The first is the ``U.S. 
Global Change Research Program Climate Science Special Report,'' which 
is part of the ``National Climate Assessment'' that Congress mandated 
some years ago. The best scientists from 13 different agencies got 
together, and over many, many months they put together a comprehensive 
review of the science and of what is going on. The opening sentence is: 
``The climate of the United States is strongly connected to the 
changing global climate.''
  A little sidebar on that--what is happening on climate change in the 
United States is strongly connected to the change in global climate. 
When you dump carbon emissions into the atmosphere, it is not just our 
atmosphere; it is everybody's atmosphere. When China or Russia or India 
dump carbon emissions into the atmosphere, they are not just hurting 
their atmosphere; they are hurting our common atmosphere of the planet.
  A little trick that Administrator Pruitt has developed is--in 
calculating the harms of climate change--to look only at U.S. emissions 
and look only at U.S. effects.
  If you have an international problem, as our scientists say, strongly 
connected to the change in global climate, what happens when you look 
only at the American effects and look only at the American emissions? 
What that means is that when you are scoring the harm of climate 
change, you are cutting it down to a mere fraction of what actually 
exists. You are cutting out the harm that other nations cause to us 
with their emissions, scrubbing it right off the books, and you are 
scrubbing off the harm that our emissions do to other nations, 
scrubbing it right off the books. It doesn't change the harm, of 
course; it just tweaks the accounting with a piece of rhetorical 
trickery to help the fossil fuel industry not have to be accountable 
for the actual harm it causes. That is what we have learned to expect 
from the EPA--nothing about the actual harm that climate change causes 
but accounting trickery to try to dial the number down so that a huge 
majority fraction of the harm never even gets counted.
  ``This assessment concludes, based on extensive evidence, that it is 
extremely likely''--which is the highest level of scientific 
certainty--``that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse 
gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-
20th century.''
  It goes on. It is not only that the evidence entirely shows ``that it 
is extremely likely that human activities, especially emissions of 
greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause,'' but when you look at what 
the alternatives might be, here is what the next sentence says: ``For 
the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative 
explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.''
  Not only is there an avalanche of evidence supporting the 
determination that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are 
causing the climate change we have observed, but when you look to see, 
well, maybe there is another explanation, there is none, zero. It does 
not exist. Why not? Because it has never been real--the phony science 
on the other side. It has always been propaganda. That is why it is 
featured on talk shows instead of peer-reviewed scientific 
publications. That is why it comes through phony industry front groups 
like the George C. Marshall Institute rather than real scientific 
organizations. We have known that for a long time.
  I see that another speaker has come to the floor. Let me conclude 
with the recent statement, just in the last few days, of the Pontifical 
Academy of Sciences. One of the strongest voices for addressing climate 
change has been Pope Francis. Pope Francis not only sees it as a real 
problem for our planet and for our care of God's creation, but he also 
sees it as a justice issue, as a moral issue. The wealthier societies 
are degrading the quality of life in poorer societies, shifting costs 
and harm to them, which they are much more vulnerable to than we are, 
in a cocoon of wealth and air conditioning and supermarkets and all of 
that. He has been a remarkable voice for this.
  One of the things he did was to set up this panel to take a look at 
climate change and what it means for the planet. The document is called 
``Declaration of the Health of People, Health of Planet and Our 
Responsibility Climate Change, Air Pollution and Health Workshop.''
  Here is its opening statement, which it calls the ``Statement of the 
Problem.'' ``With unchecked climate change and air pollution, the very 
fabric of life on Earth, including that of humans, is at grave risk.''
  If you align the science that comes through the ``National Climate 
Assessment'' and align the universities of our great country, the 
national labs of our great country, the military experts in this area 
in our great country, and now this international body pulled together 
by Pope Francis, they all come to the same place. It is just here in 
Congress, where the fossil fuel industry, through massive amounts of 
political spending, has shut down responsible conversation about this 
problem that there is any window for climate denial to creep back in--
and, of course, the ability of this administration, in tow to the 
fossil fuel industry, to stick climate-denying fossil fuel operatives 
into positions of public responsibility. This is a disgrace. The fact 
that this body cannot stand up to them, cannot find patently 
conflicted, patently unqualified nominations to be beyond the pale for 
us is a terrible testament as to how the power of the fossil fuel 
industry has corrupted our ability to perform our function in the 
Senate.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Ms. KLOBUCHAR. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Rhode Island, 
Senator Whitehouse, for his leadership. He has never given up on this, 
and he will never give up. We have many important issues ahead, one of 
which I am going to address--climate change--about this nominee and the 
fact that every country in the world now, including Nicaragua and 
Syria, have pledged to be part of this international climate change 
agreement, which is so important for reducing greenhouse gases. I thank 
Senator Whitehouse for carrying the torch on this for so long.
  I join him today in rising to speak about the nominee who the Senate 
is currently considering to lead the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Office of Air and Radiation. If confirmed, Mr. William Wehrum will be 
tasked with carrying out and managing critical Agency functions related 
to controlling airborne pollution, improving air quality, monitoring 
greenhouse gases, and overseeing energy efficiency standards.
  By the way, I was always proud that the first bill I introduced to 
the U.S. Senate when I got here was a bill with Olympia Snowe, who is 
my Republican mentor. That bill required the Agency to start collecting 
data on greenhouse

[[Page S7132]]

gas emissions. I take this very personally. The Agency ended up 
deciding to do it itself, as Senator Whitehouse is aware. But it was my 
first bill, and I decided that was a good first bill. It was 
bipartisan, and it got to the core of this issue that our country needs 
to take responsibility, that we need to work with the rest of the 
world. But most importantly, this is a long-term issue, shared by my 
businesses in Minnesota, shared by everyone from hunters to 
snowmobilers, to ice skaters in our State--the concern of our changing 
climate and the effect it will have on our way of life.
  There are two specific issues that Mr. Wehrum will be involved in 
directing from the EPA that I wish to discuss: first, the renewable 
fuel standards and, then, circle back to this issue of climate change.
  Minnesota's agriculture is very important to me. We are the fifth 
biggest ag State in the country. It is why I sought a seat on the 
Senate Agriculture Committee and why I have consistently pushed for a 
strong renewable standard. I believe we should be working in this body 
to help the farmers and the workers of the Midwest, not the oil sheikhs 
of the Middle East.
  Recently, I led a letter with Senator Chuck Grassley, which was 
signed by 38 Senators, calling on Administrator Pruitt to ensure that 
the final rule for 2018 and 2019 sets blending targets that promote 
growth in the biofuel sector and in our economy.
  The final rule for 2017 followed congressional intent and required a 
record amount of biofuel to be mixed into our transportation fuel 
supply. The final rule this year should do the same. Reducing the blend 
targets of advanced biofuels could shortchange the growth of clean 
energy innovation and stifle the growth of the market for new biofuels.
  So far the response from the administration in backing off these 
plans, thanks to Senator Grassley's leadership, has been encouraging, 
but the proof will be in the pudding when the rule is released before 
the end of the month. I appreciate the work of Senator Grassley, 
Senator Ernst, Senator Thune, and Senator Durbin--who is here with us 
right now in the Chamber--and others who have worked on this Renewable 
Fuel Standard, as well as my colleague Senator Franken.
  Renewable fuels have become a homegrown economic generator for our 
country. They reduce the environmental impact of our transportation and 
energy sectors and cut our reliance on foreign oil. Every time a new 
study is released on this subject, I become more and more convinced 
that investments in renewable fuels are investments in our economy and 
in the health of rural America.
  Last year, a study conducted by ABF Economics showed that the ethanol 
industry generated $7.37 billion in gross sales in 2015 for Minnesota 
businesses and $1.6 billion in income for Minnesota households. Here is 
a big one: The ethanol industry also supports over 18,000 full-time 
jobs in Minnesota. I see the Presiding Officer is from the State of 
Alaska. Just as he knows that the oil industry is important in our 
State, the ethanol industry is important in the Midwest, and I believe 
they can both coexist.
  Just last weekend, I visited the Green Plains ethanol plant in 
Minnesota to see one of the operations behind these impressive figures 
and meet firsthand with some of the 60 people who are employed there. 
One of the things I heard while in Fairmont was how policy instability 
and delays have chilled investment over the years. Delays in releasing 
the RFS rule in previous years has undercut the Green Plains' ability 
to acquire necessary investments and create new employment 
opportunities. The need for stable policy and the forward-looking 
administration of the RFS is key to providing certainty for producers, 
employees, and manufacturers, while unlocking billions of dollars of 
investment in the biofuel sector.
  We have to continue to build on the progress we have made of 
expanding production capacity more than threefold since 2005 with 
biodiesel, cellulosic ethanol, recycled waste, and other advanced 
biofuels. This is no longer some kind of a niche industry. This is 10 
percent of our fuel supply. That is why I am concerned with some of the 
statements that Mr. Wehrum has made and some of the clients he has 
represented in lawsuits against the EPA, many of whom sought to 
undermine and weaken the RFS.
  He was the counsel of record in several challenges to the RFS, 
including the E15 waiver, which allows for blends of up to 15 percent 
of ethanol in gasoline, something Senator Thune and I have worked on. 
Yet most concerning was his role in a 2015 challenge to the requirement 
that diesel fuel sold in my State of Minnesota contain at least 10 
percent of biodiesel, or B10.
  Let me say that this kind of principle and this policy were supported 
by Democratic, Republican, and Independent Governors in Minnesota--from 
Tim Pawlenty to Jesse Ventura to Mark Dayton. My State has been a 
leader when it comes to the use of renewable fuels. We were the first 
State in the Nation to pass a biodiesel blending law and the first 
State in the Nation to require gasoline to be blended with 10 percent 
of ethanol. We continue to be a national leader in the use of E85.
  In 2008 the State legislature amended the Minnesota mandate--that is 
when Tim Pawlenty was Governor--to gradually step up the required 
biodiesel blend from 2 percent to 5 percent and eventually to 20 
percent from 2012 to 2018. Now, according to the statute, the B10 
mandate will double to B20 starting on May 1, 2018. With bipartisan 
support and individual State responsibility, it is something that our 
State did because we knew it could work.
  Despite Mr. Wehrum's best efforts, the U.S. district court upheld 
Minnesota's mandate on renewable biodiesel, which has been in the best 
interest of rural economies and consumers. These advances are going to 
help ag producers and rural manufacturing plants do even more for the 
regional economy. The further ethanol and biodiesel take us the less 
dependent we will be on foreign oil and the less of an impact our 
transportation and energy sectors will have on the environment.
  I have already discussed the climate change issue, and I see that 
Senator Durbin is here.
  Again, I will just reiterate that I am a former prosecutor. I believe 
in evidence, and every week seems to bring fresh evidence of the damage 
that climate change is already causing. Minnesota may be miles away 
from the rising oceans, but the impacts are no less of a real threat to 
my State. I did not like Mr. Wehrum's answers that he gave to these 
questions during his hearing before the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, especially when I asked if he believed that human activities 
were the main driver of climate change and his response was: ``I 
believe that's an open question.''
  I do not think this nominee should be running this part of the 
Agency, and we cannot sit back and ignore the evidence. We need to wake 
up, take action, and turn the corner on the devastating effects of 
climate change before it is too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The minority whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in 
morning business until 11:15 a.m.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.