[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2087-S2090]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          Republican Tax Bill

  Mr. President, on a second issue, on the issue of taxes, since the 
beginning of the tax debate, Republicans have insisted their bill is 
about cutting taxes for working Americans. This is despite the fact 
that the bill would direct 83 percent of the benefits to the top 1 
percent of Americans. Despite the fact that they made corporate tax 
cuts permanent but let individual tax cuts expire, Republicans said 
that middle-class workers were the focus. Democrats warned that if you 
give big corporations, powerful corporations, and the wealthiest of 
Americans the overwhelming lion's share of the tax cuts, the 
corporations would do what they have always done when they have higher 
profits--distribute it amongst themselves. Unfortunately, we said it at 
the time, and I wish we were wrong, but our warnings proved prescient.
  Almost every day, we hear a new story about a corporation using the 
savings from the Republican tax bill to purchase its own stock. That is 
called a stock buyback. What does it do? It boosts the corporation's 
stock price to provide a reward for the wealthy CEOs and top executives 
who have the shares and shareholders, the vast majority of whom are 
wealthy Americans and a third of whom are not even Americans. They get 
the breaks.
  A stock buyback is designed to feather the nest and increase the 
power and support among shareholders of the CEO. When you buy back 
stock, you use that money--instead of investing it in workers, instead 
of investing it in a new plant, instead of investing it in training--to 
decrease the number of shares, which raises the value of the other 
shares. So who benefits? The shareholders. Who are the shareholders? 
They are the CEOs and major officers of the corporations, so they are 
not doing this without self-interest.
  As I said, 80 percent of the stocks in America are owned by the top 
10 percent of the wealthy. It is not very good.
  Let me give you an example. These are the kinds of things that are 
happening daily. Devon Energy announced a billion-dollar stock buyback 
in March, and 2 days ago they said that they are laying off 9 percent 
of their workers ``to streamline operations and boost the shale oil 
producer's sagging returns and stock price.'' They are not atypical.
  According to JUST Capital, 60 percent of the money in the Republican 
tax break went to shareholders, who tend to be the wealthiest, and only 
6 percent went to workers. So much for all the talk that when we gave 
the corporations all this money, the workers would gain most of the 
benefits. It has not happened.
  Stock buybacks are a big reason why workers no longer see the 
benefits of record corporate profits. Why? Because instead of investing 
in corporate profits and things that benefit the long-term health of 
the economy and workers--higher wages, new equipment, research, 
development, and new hires--corporations spend the money on buybacks.
  In fact, stock buybacks were illegal because they so feathered the 
nest of the very few, that when corporate CEOs and their board did it, 
they were not objective observers because they would make so much money 
from them. So stock buybacks were illegal until 1982, which is about 
the same time wages stopped increasing with corporate profits.
  Senator Baldwin has led the charge in our caucus to go back to the 
days before 1982. So when corporations had a lot of profits, whether 
through earnings, revenues, or tax breaks, they couldn't use these 
stock buybacks, and almost certainly a larger percentage of money would 
go to the workers and the middle class.
  The theory behind the Republican tax bill was to allow corporations 
and the richest Americans to keep more of their already very great 
wealth, and maybe the benefits will trickle down to

[[Page S2088]]

everybody else. As we are already seeing, the idea was folly. The 
middle class will pay the price.
  Because of the enormous cost of the Republican tax bill--$1.9 
trillion, according to the most recent CBO projection--the number keeps 
going up. All of our deficit hawks on the other side of the aisle 
somehow forgot about that when it came to giving breaks to the 
wealthiest Americans and big corporations. The deficit and debt will 
grow over the next several years, and many Republicans are already 
talking about targeting Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare for 
cuts to make up the difference. On top of the tax bill that mostly goes 
to the folks who need it the least, the Republican tax bill has become 
an excuse for Republicans to come after Social Security, Medicare, and 
Medicaid.
  It was a huge mistake and could have been crafted a whole lot better 
had our Republican colleagues decided to work with us Democrats.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sullivan). The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, we are here today primarily to discuss the 
nomination of Andrew Wheeler to serve as Deputy Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. Before I turn to Andrew Wheeler, I 
want to spend a few minutes talking about our current EPA 
Administrator.
  Recent reports of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's ethical 
shortcomings and lavish spending on the American taxpayers' dime are 
breathtaking, but they should come as no surprise. Just over a year 
ago, I stood at the very same spot where I stand today to discuss Mr. 
Pruitt's nomination. Last February, I said that never before had I been 
forced to consider a candidate to lead the EPA who had been so focused 
throughout his career on crippling the very Agency he sought to lead or 
so hostile to the basic protections that keep Americans and our 
environment safe.
  At the same time, I warned our colleagues that based on his record as 
attorney general of Oklahoma, Scott Pruitt had an unacceptably casual 
approach to meeting obligations as a public servant. Unfortunately, 
with respect to too many of my colleagues, that warning fell on deaf 
ears.
  In the 15 months since he was confirmed--narrowly confirmed--Mr. 
Pruitt has proven to be an even worse leader than I imagined on a 
policy front but also with regard to one ethical failing after another, 
as well as his disregard for the American taxpayers.
  The Presiding Officer and I have spent large portions of our lives 
serving our country in uniform--he as a marine, me as a naval flight 
officer. I was a midshipman for 4 years before being commissioned, 
served 5 years in the war in Southeast Asia, and 18 years at the end of 
the Cold War as a P-3 aircraft mission commander.
  From the age of 11, I was trained to be a leader. My guess is, my 
colleague was also. I was a Boy Scout, Civil Air Patrol cadet, naval 
ROTC midshipman, served 5 years on Active Duty, and another 18 years as 
a Reserve flight officer. If I don't know something about leadership, 
it is my fault. I have had great mentors, great role models. I was 
trained as a leader since the age of 11.
  I want to mention this about leadership. Leaders are humble, not 
haughty. Leaders are servants. Our job is to serve, not be served. We 
lead by example. Leaders stay out of step when everybody else is 
marching to the wrong tune. Leaders put the best team around them that 
they can find. When the team does well, the leader gives credit to the 
team. If the team falls short, the leader takes the blame.
  Leaders are aspirational. They appeal to our better instincts. They 
are purveyors of hope. Leaders build bridges, not walls. Leaders focus 
on doing what is right--not what is easy or what is expedient but what 
is right. Leaders treat other people the way they want to be treated. 
They actually embody the Golden Rule.
  Leaders focus on excellence in everything they do. If it isn't 
perfect, they say: Let's make it better. Let's work with other people 
to make it better. When leaders know they are right, are convinced they 
are right, and other people realize they are right, leaders don't give 
up.
  I knew 13 or 14 months ago what kind of steward Scott Pruitt would be 
with respect to protecting our air, our water, our public health. I had 
no idea--no idea--what kind of leader he would prove to be with respect 
to ethical behavior or misbehavior. What a shame. What a shame.
  Over the last 2 weeks, we have been barely able to go a day without 
learning new and increasingly troubling information about the 
Administrator's failures to conduct himself in a way a public servant, 
working on behalf of the American people, should behave.
  His poor financial judgment and serious ethical lapses make it clear 
that he is unfit for office. Setting aside his lack of stewardship on 
environmental issues, he should have never been confirmed in the first 
place.
  Administrator Pruitt's conduct is emblematic of an extraordinarily 
and ethically tone-deaf administration. There are some good people in 
this administration, a number of them. Our Presiding Officer knows 
them, and I know them. Unfortunately, one of them is not running the 
Environmental Protection Agency, where lavish trips, extravagant office 
furniture, and personal favors are the norm, not the exception.
  President Trump said he was going to drain the swamp. Scott Pruitt is 
the definition of what I recently heard one person call a swamp 
creature, with his close ties to polluters, misuse of taxpayer money, 
and corrupt dealings.
  Should the Senate confirm Andrew Wheeler, we will be setting him on a 
course to address not just these recent allegations but these 
occurrences, these terrible examples.
  As of today, Administrator Pruitt faces growing bipartisan calls for 
his firing or resignation amid nearly 25 ethics and improper 
expenditure allegations--25--and growing.
  This is 2 weeks of turmoil. This chart is the cliff notes version. 
There is more. It is not anything to be proud of. It is a lot to be 
ashamed of--excessive raises for political appointees who came with him 
from Oklahoma and unprecedented security requirements are just a few of 
his growing collection of scandals that have made headlines almost 
every day in recent weeks.
  Since his confirmation, Administrator Pruitt has developed a taste 
for the finer things in life, particularly when the American taxpayer 
is picking up the tab. Mr. Pruitt has been broadly criticized for his 
lavish spending of taxpayer dollars on various flights in his first 
year as EPA Administrator, including international trips, first-class 
flights, weekend trips home to Oklahoma, and chartered military jets.
  Mr. Pruitt somehow managed to spend over $1,600 on a flight from 
Washington, DC, to New York City last year. It takes real effort to 
find a seat that expensive. My offer to Mr. Pruitt still stands; that 
the Administrator join me on Amtrak and save a ton of money.
  Administrator Pruitt took a $40,000 trip to Morocco in December 2017 
to promote liquefied natural gas--an issue that is not within his 
Agency's jurisdiction. On his way to Morocco, Administrator Pruitt 
missed two flights while staying in Paris for 2 days. Reports also 
indicate that Administrator Pruitt spent $120,000 on a trip to Italy 
last June, including $30,000 in security-related expenses, $53,000 in 
travel vouchers, and a $36,000 chartered flight from Cincinnati to New 
York City to catch his international flight. A $36,000 chartered flight 
from Cincinnati to New York City--really?
  Mr. Pruitt has spent more than $105,000 in first-class flights during 
his first year alone in office. When confronted with the exorbitant 
pricetag on his first-class travel, the Agency said Mr. Pruitt's first-
class travel was necessary--listen to this--because of the high number 
of security threats he had received. If that were truthful, we should 
all be concerned. There are a lot of reasons to believe it is not 
truthful.
  He apparently did not consider a first-class upgrade to be vital to 
his safety while flying on his own dime, since Administrator Pruitt 
flew coach on personal trips back home to Oklahoma.
  Administrator Pruitt is also facing scrutiny for assembling a team of 
20 security agents deployed in 19 vehicles--20 security agents deployed 
in 19 vehicles--who provided an unprecedented 24/7 level of protection. 
Administrator Pruitt's unprecedented domestic and international travel 
has led to rapidly escalating costs, with his around-the-clock security 
detail racking up so

[[Page S2089]]

much overtime--get this--that many hit their annual salary caps of 
$160,000.
  CNN has reported that the demands of providing the Administrator with 
the 24/7 security coverage he desired meant taking some investigators 
from their field work.
  The New York Times reported that Administrator Pruitt asked his 
security team to use his vehicle's emergency lights and sirens to speed 
through traffic en route to a French restaurant right here in 
Washington, DC, to celebrate the President's withdrawing from the Paris 
climate agreement. And when the security agent advised Mr. Pruitt that 
sirens were only to be used in an emergency, the agent was reassigned 
less than 2 weeks later.

  The Washington Post reported that Administrator Pruitt also sought a 
$100,000-a-month private jet membership, a bulletproof SUV with run-
flat tires, and $70,000 for office furniture, including a bulletproof 
desk.
  I am not sure where Administrator Pruitt thinks he works, but his 
security detail has cost the American taxpayers nearly $3 million 
during his tenure--$3 million--roughly three times that of his 
predecessor Gina McCarthy.
  Related to Administrator Pruitt's apparent privacy concerns, he felt 
the need for taxpayers to pay for him to install a private, soundproof, 
$43,000 phone booth in his office at EPA headquarters. He added $6,000 
biometric locks to the booth, paid $3,000 to have his office swept for 
bugs, and described his soundproof booth as a sensitive compartmented 
information facility. No other EPA Administrator in history felt the 
need for such a booth. I am not aware of any Cabinet Secretary who has 
felt that kind of need.
  Earlier this week, Administrator Pruitt removed a career staffer who 
approved an internal report that undermined Mr. Pruitt's claims that he 
needed to fly first class, a 24/7 security detail, a bulletproof desk, 
and other unprecedented security protections. The career staffer who 
questioned those expenditures, who approved the internal report 
discussing them, was removed.
  Reports have also surfaced that Administrator Pruitt bypassed the 
White House to hire ex-lobbyists and sidestep President Trump's promise 
to drain the swamp and require appointees to sign an ethics pledge. 
Utilizing an obscure provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act intended 
to let the Agency quickly hire senior management and scientific 
personnel, Mr. Pruitt instead used his authority to skirt the ethics 
pledge and increase the number of ex-lobbyists who could work on issues 
of importance to their previous clients with impunity.
  It goes on. Mr. Pruitt used this same authority to again bypass the 
White House and grant significant raises to favored staff.
  After the White House refused to boost the pay of those favored 
staff, Administrator Pruitt reappointed both staffers under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act authority, allowing him to set salary levels 
himself. A 30-year-old senior counsel who worked for Pruitt in Oklahoma 
was given a raise of approximately $56,000 a year--$56,000 a year. That 
raise is just $1,000 short of the annual median household income for 
our country. Mr. Pruitt's 26-year-old director of scheduling of events 
got a pay bump too--almost $30,000.
  On his interview with FOX News last week, Mr. Pruitt denied knowledge 
of the raises, but recently reported emails among EPA staff indicated 
that Mr. Pruitt was aware and personally involved with at least one of 
those raises.
  Perhaps the most troubling among the litany of questionable financial 
expenditures and ethical lapses Mr. Pruitt has exhibited during his 
time as Administrator are recent reports that say he demoted, 
reassigned, or pushed out staff who tried to curtail his spending or 
question his ethical misbehavior.
  The New York Times reported 2 weeks ago that at least five 
officials--both career EPA employees and one political appointee, four 
of them high-ranking--were reassigned, demoted, or pushed out after 
they raised concerns about Mr. Pruitt's excessive spending and 
mismanagement.
  Just yesterday we learned that Mr. Pruitt wanted to revamp EPA 
memorabilia to, of all things, more prominently highlight himself. That 
is not what leadership or public service are supposed to be.
  The list goes on. Almost every day a new scandal emerges, and Mr. 
Pruitt's alleged actions and ethical shortcomings surpass what many of 
us thought even possible. Yet he continues to serve the American people 
as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Unfortunately, this outcome was predictable. I hope to go to a 
baseball game in Delaware tonight, the home opener for the Wilmington 
Blue Rocks, the Kansas City Royals' farm club. Some of the pitchers are 
going to throw a pitch tonight, and the pitch will be well telegraphed. 
That means the hitters can sort of guess what is coming their way.
  Well, this outcome was predictable. This pitch was well telegraphed. 
When the Senate confirms a candidate who has focused throughout his 
career on crippling the very Agency he seeks to lead, we should not 
expect a different result. Expecting anything more from Mr. Pruitt 
would be foolish. He spent 6 years as Attorney General of Oklahoma 
attacking the very Agency that he now leads--suing the very Agency he 
now leads.
  The only question is when President Trump or Members of this body 
will finally hold Scott Pruitt accountable for the damage he has done 
to the Agency and the environment he has promised and pledged and sworn 
to protect.

  We should know whether Andrew Wheeler is up to the task of helping to 
right this badly damaged EPA ship, to restore confidence, and to get it 
headed back on the right course.
  So, once again, I will warn my colleagues that Scott Pruitt's 
behavior should give us pause before we consider another nomination.
  Some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle may suggest 
that I am grandstanding or that this is some effort to score political 
points. Let me just say that this is serious stuff. This is serious 
stuff not just to Democrats, not just to Republicans or Independents, 
not just to the people in government, but to the people who pay for 
that government--the taxpayers of this country.
  Today we are considering the nominee to serve as the Deputy 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler. 
The Deputy Administrator is second in command at the Agency. The role 
of Deputy Administrator is to assist the Administrator--in this case, 
Scott Pruitt--in overseeing the day-to-day operations that help to keep 
the Agency running, to protect our air, to protect our water, and to 
protect our public health.
  Scott Pruitt has been making headlines at the EPA as of late, but for 
all the wrong reasons. From his first-class flights to his ethically 
questionable dealings with industry, Scott Pruitt has clearly been 
doing what he wants to do at EPA with little regard for the rules or 
for the American people. Even if Mr. Wheeler disagrees with the 
decisions being made by EPA's current leadership, which is something we 
should find out, it seems as though Scott Pruitt simply silences or 
isolates or reassigns any dissenters.
  It is important to know how Andrew Wheeler views the chaos that has 
engulfed EPA in the last year, most of which is of Scott Pruitt's own 
making. After all, the things we have learned about the EPA over the 
last 2 weeks gives us a different outlook than when Leader McConnell 
filed cloture on Andrew Wheeler's nomination just before the Easter 
recess. It certainly gives a different perspective than we had when 
Andrew Wheeler sat before the Environment and Public Works Committee 
last year.
  It is especially important to learn how Mr. Wheeler would address 
Scott Pruitt's ethical lapses because it is becoming clear that my 
Republican colleagues, sadly, have little interest in addressing them.
  This week, our colleague Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island 
and I sent a letter to our chairman and our friend, Senator Barrasso, 
requesting a hearing on the troubling information that we received 
regarding Mr. Pruitt's expensive and unprecedented security detail. 
Chairman Barrasso apparently does not intend to hold a hearing. I hope 
he will reconsider that decision.
  When our top government officials fail to follow the rules, we in 
Congress have a constitutional duty to hold them accountable and to get 
to the

[[Page S2090]]

truth. What did Thomas Jefferson used to say? He said: If the people 
know the truth, they will not make a mistake. Hopefully, if we in this 
body know the truth, we will not either.
  The legislative branch of government is a coequal branch of 
government. Our Founding Fathers in their wisdom designed a system 
where there would be checks and balances built in so that no one branch 
could get too far out of line, but that system only works if each 
branch is willing to assert its authority.
  I am hardly the first person to recognize the need or the importance 
of congressional oversight. Many of our Senate colleagues have 
conducted effective oversight over the years. I have, our Presiding 
Officer has, and many Members of this body have.
  Here is a call for increased oversight from 2010. It reads:

       The legislative branch has its own responsibility to 
     provide oversight over the executive branch agencies. . . . 
     Our mission should be to provide oversight for the current 
     administration to ensure integrity and transparency over 
     policy decisions being made that affect peoples' lives today.

  As issues arose in previous Congresses, previous chairmen held 
hearings into those matters.
  Those are not my words. Those are the words of our friend, the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  Let me just say, that I approved this message.
  Here is a call for increased oversight from, I think, April 2016. It 
reads:

       Mr. President, like so much in Washington, D.C., the EPA 
     has grown too big, too arrogant, too irresponsible, and too 
     unaccountable. And people in America deserve accountability.

  Again, I agree with John Barrasso.
  Finally, a quote from September 2015 reads:

       The agency needs to step back and rethink its priorities. . 
     . . The Environmental Protection Agency has been out of 
     control for far too long. It is time for Congress and 
     President Obama to hold the EPA accountable for its failures, 
     and it is time to rein in this runaway bureaucracy before it 
     does more damage to our communities, to our economy, and to 
     our country.

  September 17, 2015.
  Some things are too important to be held hostage by partisanship. 
Oversight shouldn't only be important when a Democrat is in the White 
House. Oversight shouldn't only be a critical component of Congress's 
work when Barack Obama or Gina McCarthy are in charge. Oversight of the 
executive branch is, in fact, our constitutional responsibility here in 
the Senate, and it should be constant no matter which party is in power 
in the Senate, the House, or in the White House. Whether an official's 
actions are right or wrong does not depend on where they fall on the 
political spectrum.
  Even Trey Gowdy--a terrific Congressman from South Carolina, the 
Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee--recognizes the need 
for oversight here, and our Republican colleagues in the Senate have an 
obligation to hold Mr. Pruitt to the same standards that they held 
officials who served in past administrations. If Lisa Jackson had been 
accused of even a fraction of the things it seems as though Mr. Pruitt 
has done, we would be holding hearings in the Dirksen Senate Office 
Building in the EPW hearing room every week--and we should be.
  Andrew Wheeler worked as a Senate staffer. He worked for our friend 
George Voinovich, one of my dearest friends in my whole life. He 
conducted oversight throughout his career. He later worked for Senator 
Jim Inhofe. Andrew has worked for Members such as Senator Inhofe and 
Senator George Voinovich, who I know take and took seriously their 
oversight roles. We should be able to hear from Andrew Wheeler what his 
plans are to rein in the abuses at EPA before he takes over this 
important job.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.