[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 59 (Thursday, April 12, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2090-S2103]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                                The FBI

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation, the FBI--our Nation's premier law 
enforcement agency--and to speak about the men and women who 
distinguish it.
  First, I want to refer to an opinion piece in the New York Times that 
talks about the former Director of the FBI, James Comey. As the article 
is entitled, ``The Tragedy of James Comey,'' the story has both 
positive things to say about Mr. Comey--well deserved--but also some 
criticism, which I would suggest is also well deserved. Perhaps all of 
us exhibit both positive and negative attributes. All of us make 
mistakes, and I don't mean to pick on Mr. Comey unnecessarily, but it 
sort of lays the foundation for what I want to say.
  In the April 8, 2018, New York Times article, the first line is, 
``James Comey is about to be ubiquitous.'' In other words, he is going 
to be everywhere with his book, published next week. Of course, he will 
be on an ``epic publicity tour, including interviews with Stephen 
Colbert, David Remnick, Rachel Maddow, Mike Allen, George 
Stephanopoulos, and `The View.''' So he will be everywhere.
  Of course, we expect him to tell his story from his perspective. As a 
preface for what I want to say about the rank-and-file men and women in 
the FBI, let me just read a couple of paragraphs.
  The writer says:

       [Director Comey] was the F.B.I. director overseeing the 
     investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server. He 
     and his team decided that she had not done anything that 
     warranted criminal charges. And [Director Comey] knew that 
     Republicans would blast him as a coward who was trying to 
     curry favor with the likely future president.
       So he decided to go public with his explanation for not 
     charging Clinton and to criticize her harshly. He then 
     doubled down, releasing a public update on the investigation 
     11 days before the election, even as other Justice officials 
     urged him not to. Department policy dictates that 
     investigators aren't supposed to talk publicly about why they 
     are not bringing charges. They especially don't do so when 
     they could affect [the outcome of] an election.

  That, as people will recall, is one of the primary reasons why Rod 
Rosenstein, the current Deputy Attorney General of the United States, 
recommended to the President that he dismiss Mr. Comey--for violating 
Department of Justice guidelines when it comes to talking about an 
investigation, which should remain confidential, particularly when 
there is a decision not to charge the person being investigated, and 
usurping the role of the prosecutor, recognizing that the role of the 
FBI as a primary investigator is very different. When it comes to the 
charging decision, that is left to the Department of Justice, not to 
the FBI.
  But, as the article goes on to say:

       Comey, however, decided that he knew better than everyone 
     else. He was the righteous Jim Comey, after all. He was going 
     to speak truth to power. He was also, not incidentally, going 
     to protect his own fearless image. He developed a series of 
     rationales, suggesting that he really had no choice. They 
     remain unpersuasive. When doing the right thing meant staying 
     quiet and taking some lumps, Comey chose not to.

  As I said, the article has a lot of complimentary material and also 
some criticism, and I think it is a fair piece. I mention that because 
so much of what we have heard about the FBI and the Department of 
Justice recently has been caught up in the emotions and the drama here 
in Washington, DC, and while appropriate criticism and investigation of 
past actions at the Department of Justice should take place--former 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch and why she made the decision not to 
demand that Director Comey let the Department of Justice make the 
ultimate charging decision--there is a lot of room for criticism, and I 
suggest there will be additional information that will be forthcoming 
and should be produced to Congress as part of our oversight 
responsibilities. But I think the big mistake Mr. Comey made is 
assuming that he was a law unto himself and that the rules applied to 
everybody else but not to him and, as the article says, that he knew 
better than anyone else.
  But all of that I want to contrast with what I experienced recently, 
back home in Austin where my wife and I live.
  I was there during and after the series of five bombings that 
detonated in packages across the city, killing two people and wounding 
others. People were very much on edge. It reminds me of the sniper that 
was on the loose here in Washington, DC, for a while, and people were 
terrorized--not willing to go and put gasoline in their cars. There was 
a similar sort of effect with what happened with the bombings in Texas 
and in Austin.

[[Page S2091]]

  While the suspect was still at large, I spoke to Austin police chief 
Brian Manley, and he told me how thankful he was for the army of 
Federal agents, including FBI agents, who had supported the 
investigation. He told me that as many as 500 Federal agents, including 
from the FBI and other agencies, were on the ground while the suspect 
was on the loose. I am sure it was the agents' methodical investigative 
work, combined with the work of their State and local partners, that 
was the big reason why the alleged bomber didn't wreak even more havoc 
in the Texas capital.
  It is important to remember that the FBI's role during the Austin 
bombings is important to acknowledge in our current political climate, 
when the Bureau has come under criticism and become the target of so 
much drama and politics. Of course, that was mainly about the past and 
certainly not about the new leadership that has been installed at the 
FBI under the leadership of FBI Director Christopher Wray.
  Of course, the debate started during the tenure of Loretta Lynch and 
Eric Holder at the Department of Justice, but it continued through 
Director Comey's investigation, as I said, of Hillary Clinton, and it 
has not gotten any better. But it is important to distinguish between 
the rank-and-file professionals at the FBI and people who made mistakes 
and overstepped their bounds and, unfortunately, gave the rest of the 
organization--tainted their name.
  So I want to take a moment to do what Director Wray has done in the 
past, and that is to reintroduce people to the FBI. The American public 
needs to be reminded of what the FBI actually does and how pivotal that 
work is and how long it has been doing it. The FBI has been in 
existence since 1908, and I think ``relentless'' is the best way to 
describe it.
  The Bureau's investigations have helped solve crimes like cold-
blooded murder, which happened in my home State in 1983. Just last 
year, the FBI added the suspect to its Ten Most Wanted list, and 
shortly thereafter the man turned himself in to FBI agents. It took 
more than three decades, but the FBI pursued all leads until, finally, 
it got its man.
  That is just one example of what happens every day at the FBI. Under 
the effective leadership of Director Wray, the agency has remained 
committed to doing things independently and by the book--which I think 
is perhaps the most important characteristic--for as long as it takes 
to close the cases.
  It is absolutely critical that law enforcement agencies do things by 
the book and follow the rules and the law. We have seen criticism 
directed toward Director Comey and former Attorneys General Loretta 
Lynch and Eric Holder because they did not appear to do things by the 
book but appeared to be unduly swayed by other considerations and, 
indeed, broke the rules in the book, so to speak.
  Sometimes the fierce independence and tightlipped process by which 
the FBI is supposed to operate can irk people. We are people with a 
need for immediate gratification who want to know the answer right now 
when, in fact, often law enforcement investigators have to do 
painstaking, time-consuming work, indeed, over years and decades.
  Critics say that investigations are taking too long or shouldn't be 
going on at all. But that is how the agency is supposed to operate--on 
its own, according to the standardized legal process, step by 
painstaking step. As Director Wray has said in the past, the FBI's 
means need to justify its ends, not the other way around. No rock 
should go unturned in an investigation because that is how crimes are 
solved and innocent people are exonerated.
  For the rank-and-file men and women who work at the FBI, I think it 
is important for us to send a clear and emphatic message here in the 
U.S. Senate: We appreciate everything you do to protect the public 
safety and secure the public trust.
  I want to particularly acknowledge the service of the special agent 
in charge of the FBI San Antonio Division, Christopher Combs, as well 
as the other men and women under his command. These agents have 
recently been working some pretty long days and nights, as we can 
imagine, supporting our local law enforcement during the Austin 
bombings and the tragic shooting at Sutherland Springs last fall.
  These days, it is important that our appreciation for the Bureau not 
get drowned out by the criticism, with people somehow mistakenly 
assuming that because a few people have misbehaved, it somehow reflects 
on the organization as a whole. It is important that we let the men and 
women of the FBI know we stand behind their detail-oriented approach to 
enforcing and upholding the law, that we support the FBI's doing the 
right thing in the right way, pursuing the facts and the evidence 
independently and objectively, wherever they lead.
  More than 37,000 men and women work at the FBI. That is a staggering 
number of diligent individuals, all of whom play some role in 
investigating crimes, executing search warrants, conducting interviews, 
and carrying out counterintelligence investigations across our country.
  Today, the FBI helps track down fugitives, terrorists, kidnappers, 
bank robbers, and more. It publishes its top Ten Most Wanted list, as I 
alluded to earlier, and tracks down thousands of other leads at the 
same time. It investigates terrorism, cybercrime, civil rights 
violations, public corruption, elder fraud, and even weapons of mass 
destruction.
  The FBI provides crisis intervention teams--including mental health 
professionals and even chaplains--after mass casualty events.
  It recently launched Operation Disarray, part of a broader Department 
of Justice initiative to disrupt the sale of opioids online. One 
special agent said the point of this new initiative `` `is to put drug 
traffickers on notice: Law enforcement is watching when people buy and 
sell drugs online. For those who think the Darknet provides anonymity,' 
[the special agent] explained, `you are mistaken.' ''
  To that FBI agent, I say: Amen, sir. Nice work.
  As his example shows, the very nature of crime itself is changing 
with advances in technology, and the FBI is busy innovating and 
adapting to the changed circumstances and ever-enterprising criminals.
  Recently, the FBI helped us indict online sex traffickers who used 
websites like backpage.com to coerce children into sexual servitude. 
The FBI also provided critical information that led to the thwarting of 
a terrorist plot to blow up part of the subway system in Manhattan.
  Let's not forget these countless examples as we continue to sort out 
issues related to Russian interference in our last election and what 
happened during the Hillary Clinton email server debacle. Let's leave 
politics to those who work in that realm and allow the men and women of 
the FBI to do their work. Let's not forget that in 1935, when the FBI 
adopted the official seal, the FBI was synonymous not only with the 
agency's name but with three traits--fidelity, bravery, and integrity--
which appear on the seal to this day and describe what truly motivates 
the overwhelming majority of FBI personnel.

  So I wanted to come to the floor to say thank you to the men and 
women at the FBI for all they do in protecting this country and 
pursuing justice. We are indebted to them and stand behind them in this 
unending quest.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, yesterday, Jeh Johnson, our former 
Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, dropped by to say 
hello, and I shared with him the results of an annual Federal survey. 
As the Senator may know, every major Federal agency has its employees 
surveyed with respect to its morale. Some agencies have very high 
morale, and some agencies have not so high.
  I am still a member of the Homeland Security Committee. Jeh Johnson 
and Alejandro Mayorkas, who were the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of 
that Department, spent 3 years serving in these capacities and working 
with us on the committee to try to figure out how we could help the 
employees at the Department of Homeland Security feel better about 
their work.
  I would come here to this floor every month and pick out a different 
part of the Department of Homeland Security where work was being done 
and have posters and pictures, just as the Senator has done here today, 
in order to

[[Page S2092]]

make real the service and the sacrifices of the folks, whether they be 
in the FBI or the Department of Homeland Security. It was one of those 
things, we found out, that kind of resonated in the Department. It just 
spread. Even to this day, people remember it and express thanks for 
that.
  I thank the Senator for taking a moment to do, really, something very 
similar--maybe better--than what I tried to do over those years.
  When I was the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I will 
say I had a chance to work with Jim Comey--not every day but a fair 
amount. I have worked with a lot of great leaders and some who were not 
so great. The Senator from Texas has as well. Yet I must say that I 
have enormous respect for Jim Comey, for his integrity and his 
commitment to doing what is right. I have high regard for Chris Wray, 
our new FBI Director, but there is a part of me that still wishes Jim 
Comey were still leading that agency. So we will see what he writes in 
his book, but I wish him and his family well.
  Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The 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, I am here to react to the President's 
selection of Andrew Wheeler to be the proposed No. 2 at the EPA. This 
is a selection that continues the Trump administration's essentially 
complete subservience to the fossil fuel industry in the entire 
environmental arena.
  I have described Scott Pruitt, Rick Perry, and Ryan Zinke, who is 
over at Interior, as the three stooges of the fossil fuel industry, and 
I reiterate that today.
  Scott Pruitt, in addition to being one of those stooges, also has 
some of the most extraordinary displays of unethical and self-serving 
political acts of anybody I have ever seen. I can only imagine what 
this floor would look like if an Obama appointee had engaged in those 
kinds of behaviors. In all of those seats, we would have had 
Republicans shouting and jumping up and down in their being infuriated 
by that misconduct. Yet, because it is Pruitt, because it is Trump, and 
because the fossil fuel industry is getting everything it wants out of 
this guy, the silence is deafening. But that doesn't change the 
underlying fact that the American people are owed folks in high office 
who take their public duty seriously. There is very little chance that 
Mr. Wheeler is going to take his public duties seriously as No. 2 at 
the EPA. It is not like it is with the No. 1 at the EPA, where there is 
a stopgap who is going to defend us.
  This is a very dangerous duo. Scott Pruitt is a complete flunky of 
the fossil fuel industry--largely disgraced but still hanging on there 
and his only claim to fame being that he will do anything the fossil 
fuel industry tells him to do. That is why he is hanging on. Now coal 
lobbyist Wheeler is coming on to be his No. 2. That is a dangerous 
combination to lead our Environmental Protection Agency.
  There was an interesting series of photographs that actually got the 
photographer fired in this administration for having released these 
photographs. There was a little meeting over at the Energy Department 
with Secretary Perry and Bob Murray, who is the head of Murray Energy. 
He is a coal baron, and he, obviously, has one interest in mind, which 
is to sell more coal, burn more coal, and to heck with the rest of you, 
more or less.
  This was Mr. Murray as he arrived at the Department of Energy, up in 
the Secretary's conference room. The bald gentleman is Mr. Murray. The 
man whose head is obscured behind him in this torrid hug is our Energy 
Secretary. So you knew things were going to go well for Mr. Murray at 
this meeting after that nice, cozy reception that he got.
  Then the photographer went on and took this picture, which is of 
Murray Energy Corporation's recommendations to the Honorable Richard 
Perry as to what he should do about the environment. I will spend some 
more time on that memo in just a moment. After long delays, we were 
actually able to get our hands on it. They delayed and they fiddled and 
they faddled and wouldn't confirm that they had it. When the photograph 
showed that they had it, they said: OK. We will give it to you when we 
give our FOIA requests.
  Great. Thanks a bunch. So much for congressional oversight.
  I hope that if the now majority is ever in the minority in the 
Senate, that it doesn't get treated this way--being told to line up 
with the FOIA folks as they are not interested in responding to 
oversight requests for memos, but that is what we got.
  Here is another photograph from that meeting. Here is Mr. Murray 
telling the Energy Secretary what to do. There is the Energy 
Secretary--fresh out of his nice hug--being told what to do. Here is 
Mr. Wheeler, the guy who is going to be the No. 2 at the EPA. He was 
right in the room where the Murray directions to the Trump 
administration were being discussed and delivered.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this document be printed 
in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  Here is the action plan. It reads: ``Dear Secretary Perry, enclosed 
is an Action Plan for achieving reliable and low cost electricity in 
America and to assist in the survival of our country's coal industry.''
  What are the recommendations?
  Page 1: ``SUSPEND THE COAL-FIRED POWERPLANT EFFLUENT LIMITATION 
GUIDELINES.''
  Yes. Why would we want limitations on the effluent that a coal-fired 
powerplant can emit? Why on Earth would anybody want that? No. To 
suspend those is one of the recommendations.
  The second is to withdraw and suspend the so-called endangerment 
finding.
  The endangerment finding is the fact-based finding at the EPA that 
shows that, in addition to it being a matter of law pursuant to 
Massachusetts v. EPA, carbon dioxide is a pollutant in the air. This is 
the Agency's finding that it is actually a dangerous pollutant in the 
air. That is why it is called the endangerment finding. So they want to 
knock that out so they can knock out regulation of more coal-powered 
powerplant effluents, including carbon dioxide.

  Then they want to eliminate the tax credit for wind and solar. Here 
is an industry that gets, according to the International Monetary Fund, 
$700 billion a year in effective subsidies in the United States of 
America alone, and their goal is to knock out the little production tax 
credit that wind and solar get? That is what he asked for.
  ``WITHDRAW FROM THE . . . PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD.'' Well, we all know 
he was obeyed on that.
  Here's a particularly good one: ``END . . . OZONE REGULATIONS.'' Let 
me state what Rhode Island's experience in this is. The midwestern 
powerplants burn coal and other fossil fuels. They run the exhaust out 
of smoke stacks. Many of them have raised enormously high smoke stacks 
to get all that stuff way up into the air, so it is then carried by 
prevailing winds out of their State--out of their State. As it bakes in 
the heat as it travels through the air, it becomes ozone. That ozone 
lands in Rhode Island.
  Ladies and gentlemen, children go to the hospital because of asthma 
complications from ozone in Rhode Island. We have had periods when, on 
a bright and sunny day, the talk radio, your drive-time radio, 
announces to Rhode Islanders that today is a bad air day in the State 
of Rhode Island, and the elderly and babies and any people with 
breathing difficulty should stay indoors. You are not welcome out-of-
doors because of ozone levels.
  This guy wants to end ozone regulation. I think not. This guy was his 
lobbyist in trying to do that. That is what has become of the EPA.
  What else? ``OVERTURN THE . . . CROSS-STATE AIR POLLUTION RULE.'' 
Rhode Island doesn't create much air pollution. The EPA protects Rhode 
Island from other States' air pollution with--guess what--the cross-
state air pollution rule. He wants to overturn it.
  Finally, ``CUT THE STAFF OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

[[Page S2093]]

AGENCY IN AT LEAST HALF.'' Well, they are doing a pretty good job of 
destroying the Environmental Protection Agency as an agency that does 
environmental protection, but I have to say, cutting the Agency in half 
and firing half of it--that seems a bit much.
  They also want Justices of the Supreme Court who rule in favor of 
coal. They want to replace all the members of the Federal Regulatory 
Energy Commission, the members of the Tennessee Valley Authority board, 
and the members of the National Labor Relations Board. There is a bunch 
in there to make sure that coal safety regulations are undone.
  That is what we are dealing with. We are dealing with an agency that 
has been taken over by the fossil fuel industry, and it has gotten so 
bad that I want to conclude with this editorial, which I ask unanimous 
consent to have printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
  This is an editorial from, of all places, the Charleston, WV, 
Gazette-Mail. I think the body can take notice that West Virginia is 
more or less the heart of coal country.
  Here is what the Charleston, WV, Gazette-Mail said about where things 
are at EPA right now. The title is ``Editorial: With self-serving 
Pruitt at EPA, Trump is building a swamp.''
  Here are some selections:

       Donald Trump campaign crowds loved to chant, ``Drain the 
     Swamp!'' But if ever there was a political swamp creature, 
     it's Scott Pruitt, the man Trump picked to head the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency.

  The Charleston Gazette-Mail continues:

       Pruitt has been a shill for fossil fuel industries since 
     his days as attorney general in Oklahoma, so maybe he saw 
     this--

all his self-aggrandizing expenditures--

     as his just desserts. But of all the Trump administration 
     flunkies who have used taxpayer money for their personal 
     benefit, Pruitt may be the worst.

  That is the word from Charleston, WV.
  Some of the examples:

       [Pruitt] used a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     that's supposed to let the EPA hire experts quickly in a 
     [drinking water] emergency . . . [to] give tax taxpayer-
     funded raises to political lackeys.
       [He] took first-class, charter, and military flights that 
     cost taxpayers $163,000.
       He . . . tripled the size of his security detail.
       He had the EPA spend $25,000--

  I think we actually know that is up to $43,000 now--

     to build a soundproof communications booth in his office.

  There is nothing more that the EPA Administrator needs than a cone-
of-silence soundproof booth in his office--as if he is running the CIA 
or something.
  They conclude:

       There are many reasons why Scott Pruitt shouldn't be 
     leading the EPA, primarily that he doesn't seem to believe in 
     science and is more interested in helping big business than, 
     you know, protecting the environment. But his obvious belief 
     that taxpayer money and resources are given to him for his 
     personal benefit is a big reason, as well.

  I thank the newspaper in West Virginia for acknowledging that some 
conduct is so disgraceful that it goes too far.
  When that is the No. 1 person in the EPA, we have no business 
confirming this person as the No. 2 person for the EPA.
  With that, I see colleagues who, I assume, want to speak in favor of 
this nominee, and I will yield the floor to them.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                    Murray Energy Corporation,

                              St. Clairsville, OH, March 28, 2017.
     Hon. J. Richard Perry,
     Secretary, Department of Energy,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Secretary Perry: Enclosed is an Action Plan for 
     achieving reliable and low cost electricity in America and to 
     assist in the survival of our Country's coal industry, which 
     is essential to power grid reliability and low cost 
     electricity.
       We are available to assist you in any way that you request.
           Sincerely,

                                             Robert E. Murray,

                                               Chairman, President
     & Chief Executive Officer.
                                  ____


  Action Plan for Reliable and Low Cost Electricity in America and To 
         Assist in the Survival of our Country's Coal Industry


Suspend the coal-fired power plant effluent limitation guidelines (ELG) 
    and coal combustion residuals (CCR) rules of the united states 
                    environmental protection agency

       The compliance deadlines for both regulations must be 
     suspended. The illegal ELG rule needs to be rescinded. The 
     CCR regulation need to be rewritten delegating the authority 
     to the states in light of the new legislation passed in 
     December.


Implement emergency actions relative to the security and resiliency of 
                        the electric power grids

       The Department of Energy (``DOE'') must issue an emergency 
     directive to have an immediate study done of the security and 
     resiliency of our electric power grids. DOE will direct that 
     no power plants having an available fuel supply of at least 
     forty-five (45) days be closed during the study period, or a 
     minimum of two (2) years.


             ``Endangerment finding'' for greenhouse gases

       There must be a withdrawal and suspension of the 
     implementation of the so-called ``endangerment finding'' for 
     greenhouse gases.
        EPA's ``endangerment finding'' under the Clean Air Act 
     serves as the foundation for the agency's far reaching 
     regulation of the economy in the form of emission limitations 
     for greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. The high 
     degree of uncertainty in the range of data relied upon by EPA 
     combined with the enormous regulatory costs without 
     concomitant benefits merit revisiting the ``endangerment 
     findings''.
       According to EPA's finding, the ``root cause'' of recently 
     observed climate change is ``likely'' the increase in 
     anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. EPA relied upon 
     computer-based climate model simulations and a ``synthesis'' 
     of major findings from scientific assessment reports with a 
     significant range of uncertainty related to temperatures over 
     25 years. The climate model failures are well documented in 
     their inability to emulate real-world climate behavior. 
     Models that are unable to simulate known climate behavior 
     cannot provide reliable projections of future climate 
     behavior. As for the scientific assessments underlying the 
     ``synthesis'' of findings used by EPA, many were not peer 
     reviewed, and there are multiple instances where portions of 
     peer reviewed literature germane to the ``endangerment 
     finding'' were omitted, ignored or unfairly dismissed.


 Eliminate the thirty (30) percent production tax credit for windmills 
               and solar panels in electricity generation

       Electricity generated by windmills and solar panels costs 
     twenty-six (26) cents per kilowatt hour with a four (4) cent 
     per kilowatt hour subsidy from the American taxpayers. These 
     energy sources are unreliable and only available if the wind 
     blows or the sun shines. Coal-fired electricity costs only 
     four (4) cents per kilowatt hour. Low cost electricity is a 
     staple of life, and we must have a level playing field in 
     electric power generation without the government picking 
     winners and losers by subsidizing wind and solar power.


  Withdraw from the illegal united nations COP 21 Paris climate accord

       The United Nation's COP 21 Paris Climate Control Accord, to 
     which Barrack Obama has already committed one (1) billion 
     dollars of America's money, is an attempt by the rest of the 
     world to obtain funding from our Country. It is an illegal 
     treaty never approved by Congress, and it will have no effect 
     on the environment.


   end the electric utility maximum achievable technology and ozone 
                              regulations

       We have won these issues in the United States Supreme 
     Court, and these rules must be completely overturned.


        Fund the development of certain clean coal technologies

       The Federal government must support the development of some 
     Clean Coal Technologies, including: ultra super critical 
     combustion; high efficiency, low emission coal firing; 
     combined cycle coal combustion; and others. It should not 
     fund so-called carbon capture and sequestration (``CCS''), as 
     it does not work, practically or economically. Democrats and 
     some Republicans use CCS as a political cover to insincerely 
     show that they are proposing something for coal. But, carbon 
     capture and sequestration is a pseudonym for ``no coal''.


     Overhaul the bloated and politicalized mine safety and health 
             administration of the U.S. Department of Labor

       This Federal agency, over the past eight (8) years, has not 
     been focused on the coal miner safety, but on politics, 
     bureaucracy, waste, and violation quotas. While coal mine 
     employment has been cut in half, the Federal Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration has continued to hire inspectors every 
     year. But, the government has nowhere to put them. Murray 
     Energy Corporation received an average of 532 Federal 
     inspectors per month in 2016.
       We must send a Company manager with every one of these 
     inspectors, taking us away from our employee safety 
     inspections and safety training.


 cut the staff of the U.S. environmental protection agency in at least 
                                  half

       Tens of thousands of government bureaucrats have issued 
     over 82,000 pages of regulations under Obama, many of them 
     regarding coal mining and utilization. The Obama EPA, alone, 
     wrote over 25,000 pages of rules,

[[Page S2094]]

     thirty-eight (38) times the words in our Holy Bible.


      overturn the recently enacted cross-state air pollution rule

       This regulation particularly punishes states in which coal 
     mining takes place to the benefit of other wealthier east 
     coast states.


 revise the arbitrary coal mine dust regulation of the mine safety and 
            health administration of the department of labor

       This regulation provides no health benefit to our coal 
     miners, and threatens the destruction of thousands of coal 
     mining jobs.


 obtain legislation to fund both the retiree medical care and pensions 
      for all of america's united mine workers of america (UMWA)--
                    represented, retired coal miners

       For four (4) years, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell 
     has refused to address this issue. Some say that this is 
     because the UMWA wrongly opposed him in his recent election. 
     This must be taken care of. And the legislation enacted must 
     address not just those recently orphaned through company 
     bankruptcies and mine closures, but the medical benefits and 
     pensions that were promised to all retired miners by the 
     Federal government itself.


   overturn the mine safety and health administration, department of 
                   labor, pattern of violations rule

       This rule is a punitive action of the Mine Safety and 
     Health Administration under its Director for the past eight 
     (8) years, the former Safety Director of a labor union.


  appoint justices to the supreme court of the united states who will 
           follow our united states constitution and our laws

       We must offset the liberal appointees who want to redefine 
     our Constitution and our law.


  members of the federal energy regulatory commission must be replaced

       The current Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has a 
     record of favoring actions of the Obama Administration. That 
     has systematically devalued base load generation as a result 
     of the Obama ``war on coal''. These actions have put the 
     future security and reliability of America's electric power 
     grid at risk. Immediate action needs to be taken to require 
     organized power markets to value fuel security, fuel 
     diversity, and ancillary services that only base load 
     generating assets, especially coal plants, can provide.


 members of the tennessee valley authority board of directors must be 
                                replaced

       The Board of Directors of this government agency has 
     followed the mandates of the Obama Administration, rather 
     than assure reliable, low cost electricity for the Tennessee 
     Valley Authority's rate payers, whom they are mandated to 
     serve in this manner.


  replace the members of the national labor relations board (``nlrb'')

       Eliminate the antiemployer bias of the NLRB by appointing 
     members and staff, particularly in the General Counsel's 
     office, who will fairly consider the employer's position and 
     needs and not automatically accede to the unions or unionized 
     employees in every matter considered.

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Charleston Gazette-Mail, Apr. 5, 2018]

 Editorial: With Self-Serving Pruitt at EPA, Trump Is Building a Swamp

       Donald Trump campaign crowds loved to chant, ``Drain the 
     swamp!'' But if ever there was a political swamp creature, 
     it's Scott Pruitt, the man Trump picked to head the U.S. 
     Environmental Protection Agency. Pruitt has been in the news 
     most recently for his cozy relationship with the lobbyist for 
     a Canadian pipeline company. The company, Enbridge Inc., 
     received a high recommendation from Pruitt's EPA for an oil 
     pipeline expansion project.
       Enbridge's lobbyist was the firm of Williams & Jensen. The 
     wife of the firm's chairman owns a pricey condominium in 
     Washington, D.C., and was letting Pruitt live there for $50 a 
     night, sometimes joined by his daughter, and Pruitt only had 
     to pay for the nights he stayed there. That is an 
     unbelievably sweet deal, and while there's no direct evidence 
     of a mutual back-scratching, it sure looks that way. On some 
     level, this is no surprise. Pruitt has been a shill for 
     fossil fuel industries since his days as attorney general in 
     Oklahoma, so maybe he saw this as his just desserts. But of 
     all the Trump administration flunkies who have used taxpayer 
     money for their personal benefit, Pruitt may be the worst.
       Despite the White House telling him not to give large 
     raises to two employees who followed him from Oklahoma, 
     Pruitt did it anyway. He used a loophole in the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act that's supposed to let the EPA hire experts quickly 
     in an emergency, not give taxpayer-funded raises to political 
     lackeys. One of those lackeys helped Pruitt find a new place 
     to live, once the EPA administrator had to leave his 
     sweetheart condo deal behind. Using publicly funded employees 
     for such private business is another misuse of taxpayer-
     funded resources.
       During his first year in office, Pruitt took first-class, 
     charter and military flights that cost taxpayers $163,000. 
     according to EPA records provided to the U.S. House Oversight 
     Committee. Pruitt and a group of aides also socked taxpayers 
     with a $90,000 bill for a trip to Italy that included a trip 
     to visit the pope.
       Pruitt was flying first-class because of public 
     confrontations that involved ``vulgar'' and ``threatening 
     language,'' according to The Washington Post. Pruitt is 
     clearly very worried about his security; he has tripled the 
     size of his security detail, and is the first EPA 
     administration to have 24/7 security--again, at taxpayer 
     expense. That security detail includes some EPA agents who 
     would otherwise be investigating environmental crimes, rather 
     than protecting their snowflake boss. (Pruitt's predecessors. 
     Gina McCarthy and Lisa Jackson--who were demonized repeatedly 
     by West Virginia politicians, among others--flew coach, with 
     a much smaller security presence.)
       Maybe Pruitt is just paranoid in general. In September, he 
     had the EPA spend $25,000--all together now, in taxpayer 
     money--to build a soundproof communications booth in his 
     office. He's asked employees not to bring their mobile phones 
     to meetings with him, and he reportedly prefers not to use 
     email--no doubt because emails from his time as Oklahoma 
     attorney general show how much he cozied up to oil and gas 
     producers. There are many reasons why Scott Pruitt shouldn't 
     be leading the EPA, primarily that he doesn't seem to believe 
     in science and is more interested in helping big business 
     than, you know, protecting the environment. But his obvious 
     belief that taxpayer money and resources are given to him for 
     his personal benefit is a big reason, as well.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Boozman). The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Mr. President, I am here with my colleague from 
Oklahoma to speak in favor of Andrew Wheeler. I support Andrew Wheeler 
to serve as the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
  During the previous administration, the Environmental Protection 
Agency issued burdensome regulations that harmed American workers and 
American communities. Since President Trump took office 15 months ago, 
the EPA has rolled back many of these punishing regulations, including 
the so-called Clean Power Plan and the waters of the United States, or 
the WOTUS, rule.
  Under President Trump and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, this Agency 
is now working for commonsense environmental policies--policies that 
don't harm the American economy and don't punish American families.
  Administrator Pruitt needs his full team at the Environmental 
Protection Agency in order to accomplish these goals. So today, the 
Senate is going to consider the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be 
Deputy Administrator of the EPA. The Deputy Administrator is critical 
in developing and implementing the policies that fulfill the EPA's 
mission of protecting human health and the environment.
  Mr. Wheeler is very well qualified for the position. He spent over 25 
years working in environmental policies. At that time, he served as a 
career employee at the EPA, working as an environmental protection 
specialist. This experience makes him uniquely qualified to serve in 
the role of Deputy Administrator.
  He has spent over a decade here on Capitol Hill, shaping 
environmental law. He served as the staff director of the Senate 
Environment and Public Works Air Subcommittee from 1997 to 2003. This 
was followed by another 6 years as a Republican staff director and 
chief counsel for the full committee, 2003 to 2009. Most recently, Mr. 
Wheeler has been a consultant for a variety of energy and environmental 
clients.
  Andrew Wheeler's commitment to sound environmental policies has 
received recognition from across the aisle as well. The ranking member 
of the Environment and Public Works Committee said this of Mr. Wheeler:

       I think having worked in the agency, he actually cares 
     about the environment; the air that we breathe; the water we 
     drink; the planet on which we live.

  Stuart Spencer, the president of the Association of Air Pollution 
Control Agencies, said this of Mr. Wheeler:

       Mr. Wheeler has exemplified excellence in his professional 
     endeavors, in his previous government service and private 
     sector experience. In short, he is keenly qualified to hit 
     the ground running at EPA.

  I agree. His nomination has garnered the support of a broad base of 
organizations, including the National Association of Manufacturers, the 
United Mine Workers of America, and the Chamber of Commerce.
  Andrew Wheeler is well qualified to fill this critically important 
role at the EPA. He is the right person to serve as

[[Page S2095]]

Deputy Administrator of the EPA, and I urge every Senator to support 
this nomination.
  With that, I recognize my colleague and friend from Oklahoma, who has 
been a mentor to me on the committee, the former chairman of the 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, Jim Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma is recognized.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wyoming for the 
great remarks he made about Andrew Wheeler. You know, it is awfully 
hard to find anyone who knows him well who will say anything bad about 
him. I guess the only thing you can criticize him for is that he worked 
for me for 14 years.
  But I will tell you, during that timeframe, over a 14-year period, I 
don't remember anyone ever accusing him of being unfair, of being 
negative in any way at all. But a couple of things were said, and I 
think I need to correct the record. I need to be the one to correct it 
because I am the guy he worked for over a long period of time--both in 
my personal office and in my capacity as chairman of the Environment 
and Public Works Committee. Because I know him so well, I have to 
correct the record on his behalf.
  One allegation made against Andrew in a news article is that he 
retaliated against a witness at an EPW--that is Environment and Public 
Works--Senate hearing in 2005 because we were unhappy with the 
witness's testimony. Nothing in the news article was true or accurate. 
This was an article that came out just the other day.
  The witness in question and the major source of the article was Mr. 
Bill Becker. He was then the president of STAPPA, the Association of 
State Air Directors. These are the State directors who are becoming 
more prominent in what they are able to get through.
  Mr. Becker charged at that time that in retaliation for his January 
2005 testimony, the committee launched an investigation into his 
organization's finances.
  In reality, the investigation was actually launched almost a year 
before Mr. Becker appeared before the committee. That is a huge 
difference. The article cannot be true.
  Prior to the hearing, my staff notified the minority staff of the 
committee that he was currently under investigation, and we recommended 
against calling Mr. Becker as a witness.
  I still have a copy of the memo my staff prepared for me before the 
hearing in 2005, noting that they had notified the minority staff about 
the investigation. This is the memo, and I ask unanimous consent that 
it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Timeline of EPA Grants Oversight Involving Federal Grants to STAPPA-
                                 ALAPCO

       March 3, 2004--EPW Committee hearing regarding EPA grants 
     management where EPA IG testified to an it audit involving a 
     non-profit receiving federal funding in violation of the 
     Lobbying Disclosure Act. Inhofe subsequently began a series 
     of information requests announced at the hearing and 
     thereafter gathering information concerning EPA grant 
     management.
       May 4, 2004--Email to EPA requesting the amounts of EPA 
     grants awarded to the following organizations from 1988-2004:
       Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
       Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
     Administrators
       Environmental Council of the States
       State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators
       Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials
       Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
     Officials (An email was sent to EPA instead of a letter 
     pursuant to the request of the EPA citing administrative 
     convenience in responding to an email.)
       May 20, 2004--Email to EPA following up on previous request 
     for grant amounts to previous requested groups.
       July 9, 2004--Letter to EPA requesting information to 
     clarify material EPA provided in response to May email.
       July 12, 2004--Telephone conversation with EPA Grants and 
     Debarment Director and EPA Project Manager of STAPPA-ALAPCO 
     grants regarding grants. EPW staff received previous 
     complaints concerning the particular funding arrangement for 
     STAPPA-ALAPCO. EPA confirmed that it has a special funding 
     relationship with STAPPA-ALAPCO as it provides funding 
     directly out of grants that are otherwise to be provided 
     directly to states, and other professional associations do 
     not have such a relationship. State that are members of other 
     professional organizations provide dues funding directly to 
     those organizations. EPA staff also referenced the House 
     Report language Inhofe used in his question to STAPPA-ALAPCO 
     as a specific directive to the EPA requiring state and local 
     air agency concurrence to continue the funding practice.

                         STAPPA Funding Request


        WE HAVE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHO THEY REPRESENT FOR YEARS

       During the late 90's debate on Gasoline/Sulfur STAPPA took 
     a controversial position defending the auto industry against 
     the oil industry. At the time we received letters from 14 
     Governors taking the opposite position from STAPPA and heard 
     from several State Air Directors who complained that STAPPA 
     did not represent their views.


            WE STARTED LOOKING AT THEIR FINANCES LAST SUMMER

       May 4, 2004--You requested funding information on 6 
     different State associations, including STAPPA from EPA as 
     part of our Grants Oversight.
       July 9, 2004--Requested additional info from EPA on all 6.
       July 12, 2004--We requested more information from EPA on 
     STAPPA alone. We received no complaints about the other 
     organizations and STAPPA's funding arrangement appears to be 
     different from all of the others.


            SENATE APPROPS STARTED LOOKING AT THEM LAST FALL

       Fall 2004--Senate Approps Subcommittee included funding 
     language directed specifically at STAPPA


                           NOTIFIED MINORITY

       Prior to invite to testify, Inhofe staff told Jeffords 
     staff that we would be asking questions about their financing 
     and how they reach their decisions.
       All of the IRS information we requested is available 
     publicly and is necessary to determine if they are giving the 
     EPA the same information they give the IRS. This is part of 
     our long term EPA grants management oversight.

  Mr. INHOFE. Unfortunately, facts don't seem to matter when a Trump 
nomination is at stake. The story that isn't being told is about his 
character and integrity. People don't remember that the Bush EPA told 
minority members of the EPW Committee, the Democrats, that they 
wouldn't respond to their letters.
  Well, it was Andrew Wheeler who made it clear to the EPA that they 
would answer any questions the minority had or, as chairman, I would 
submit their questions for them. No one is telling that story, but they 
are spreading other allegations.
  Another negative story making the rounds is that Andrew hosted 
fundraisers for Senator Barrasso and me while it was known he was going 
to be nominated as Deputy Administrator of the EPA.
  Well, the fact of the matter is that Andrew hosted these fundraisers 
long before even being interviewed by the White House for this 
nomination. All the dates are there. The facts are there.
  After dispensing with the falsehood surrounding Andrew, the rest of 
the opposition to him comes down to two things and two things only: He 
doesn't have the correct view on environmental policy, and he worked 
for the wrong people, including me. Now, those things are actually 
stated on the Senate floor, and I understand that. If they consider 
that to be an opposition or something that needs to be corrected, I 
believe they are wrong because he was an excellent, excellent employee 
during that time and all the other times. The fact that he had a choice 
of someone to support when he had not even been notified that he might 
be considered for this nomination is significant.
  The extreme environmentalists were given free rein under the Obama 
administration for 8 years, including writing the EPA's regulations, 
and they can't handle the fact that the American people have said 
``enough.'' Trump and Scott Pruitt have been delivering relief for the 
American people and the economy since they have been in office. Andrew 
Wheeler will be a great help to Administrator Pruitt in continuing to 
implement President Trump's vision of returning EPA to an agency of the 
people, subject to the rule of law. He has worked in EPA before, even 
winning awards from EPA, and he will be a good steward for the 
environment.
  It is always difficult when you know someone personally and you know 
their character and you have a personal love for them and for their 
career and you have played an integral part to hear things of a 
negative nature said about them. As to a lot of the things they are 
grouping together, maybe they don't like philosophically Scott Pruitt. 
I do. I spent 20 years in business, and I know what overregulation

[[Page S2096]]

is, and I know that our economy was suffering during the 8 years that 
we had others in charge. In fact, the proof of that is that the average 
increase in our economy for 8 years was 1.5 percent. Now, just because 
of this President and this administration getting rid of some of the 
overregulations, it is now well in excess of 3 percent.
  Now, people ask: How are you going to pay for the road program and 
rebuilding the military that was torn down during the last 
administration? They forget about the fact--and no one disagrees with 
this--that for every 1 percent increase in the economic activity or 
GDP, that equates to additional revenue to the Federal Government of 
$1.9 trillion over a 10-year period. That is the reason we now are in a 
position to do some of the things we need to be doing in terms of 
infrastructure and other things and certainly for our military and 
other areas. So that is significant. That is something that Andrew 
Wheeler knows well, because we have gone through this in the past.
  Andrew Wheeler is a wonderful guy, and I would defy anyone who knows 
him well to say there is any fault in his character. He is going to do 
a great job, and they need his help. I appreciate the fact that I 
believe he is going to be confirmed to that position.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CARPER. 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. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise--again today for the second time--
in opposition to the confirmation of Andrew Wheeler, at this time to be 
Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is not 
a decision I came to lightly or without considerable effort to find a 
different path. I wish to begin this section of my remarks by 
describing some of the events that brought us to this point.
  First, I wish to talk briefly about my own experience with Mr. 
Wheeler. As a staff member of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee, working for our dear friend, the late-Senator George 
Voinovich, and Senator Jim Inhofe, Mr. Wheeler was not someone with 
whom we agreed on each and every issue. However, Mr. Wheeler did prove 
to be someone with whom we could work on policies on which we did 
agree, like, for example, the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which 
reduces significantly diesel engine pollution and emissions from older 
diesel engines. I would also note that his responses during and after 
last year's hearings on his nomination were, for the most part, 
encouraging.
  Mr. Wheeler also has some recent professional history that is 
troubling--and to some, very troubling. During the Trump transition, 
the public got a chance to read the so-called Murray action plan. What 
is that? It is a list of policy proposals submitted to President Trump 
and other Trump administration officials by Mr. Wheeler's former client 
for a while, Bob Murray. The Murray action plan includes any number of 
measures that EPA, in the last 15 months, has begun to implement, like 
the repeals of the Clean Power Plan and the clean water rule and the 
decimation of the EPA's career workforce. The document also calls for 
some measures that EPA has not yet acted upon. For example, Mr. Murray 
calls for the repeal of the mercury and air toxic standards, rules that 
limit dangerous pollution from powerplants, even though industry is 
already complying with those same rules.
  Mr. Murray also calls for a reexamination of climate change science 
and the repeal of EPA's so-called endangerment finding. I will talk a 
little bit more about that in a minute. It is the conclusion that both 
the Bush and the Obama administrations reached that found that global 
warming pollution from cars and SUVs was dangerous. I think I will just 
take a minute and talk about the endangerment finding right here. 
People talk about the endangerment finding. I don't think it is well-
understood where it came from, and I wish to take just a moment if I 
can to try to relate it in terms that I can understand and, hopefully, 
other people can as well.
  If you go back to the Clean Air Act, section 202 of the Clean Air Act 
says that if EPA determines that an air pollutant emitted from motor 
vehicles endangers public health or welfare, EPA has to write 
regulations to control those emissions. It has to write regulations to 
control those emissions. I believe it was in 1999 that environmental 
organizations petitioned EPA to do just that, and they asked EPA to 
determine that the greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles were 
dangerous. President Bush rejected their position in 2003, saying that 
greenhouse gases did not meet the law's definition of an air pollutant.
  The State of Massachusetts led a coalition of other States and 
environmental organizations, though, and they filed a lawsuit against 
the Bush administration's decision. In April 2007, I think it was, the 
Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts and those who filed with 
Massachusetts. The court told EPA in 2007 that greenhouse gasses are 
``air pollutants'' under the Clean Air Act, and they went on to say 
that EPA had to determine whether they were dangerous.
  Although President Bush's EPA Administrator, Stephen Johnson, was 
ready to make the so-called endangerment finding for greenhouse gases 
being emitted from cars and SUVs, the White House would not let him do 
it. The White House would not let their own EPA Administrator make that 
finding. So it wasn't until a year or 2 later--I think it was in 
December 2009--that the Obama administration's EPA finalized its 
determination that greenhouse gases from motor vehicles are dangerous. 
In 2010, EPA and the Transportation Department issued the first joint 
fuel economy and greenhouse tailpipe standards for cars and SUVs.
  In the meantime, many industry groups tried to overturn the EPA's 
decisions. They filed suits in a number of different Federal courts 
saying that those groups did not agree with the climate science. They 
didn't agree with the process that EPA used to arrive at this 
endangerment finding, and they didn't like the regulation that EPA was 
writing in 2009. Well, 2 or 3 years later, in 2012, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the DC Circuit, which is the top appeals court in the whole 
country, right below the Supreme Court, ruled against the industry, 
upholding both the endangerment finding and the EPA's clean air rules. 
The Supreme Court declined to take up the industry's appeal. So it 
stood.
  The U.S. court of appeals essentially sustained what EPA, under the 
Obama administration, sought to do and what Stephen Johnson, who was 
the EPA Administrator in the Bush administration the last year or 2, 
sought to do.
  So what does all of this mean? What this means is that this is 
settled law. The highest courts in the land have said that greenhouse 
gases are air pollutants, they are dangerous, and EPA must regulate 
them.
  Now, with that as a backdrop, let me say that I met with Mr. Wheeler 
a couple of times in the last year. I asked him directly whether or not 
he was involved in writing Mr. Murray's proposal--the so-called Murray 
plan that has been taken as an action plan by this administration and 
by this EPA under its current Administrator. Mr. Wheeler assured me 
that he was not involved in writing Mr. Murray's proposal.
  He did go on to tell me, however, that one of Murray Energy's 
priority issues that Andy Wheeler actually worked on was securing 
health and other benefits for retired miners. I think that is something 
most of us would support.
  Moreover, Mr. Wheeler also assured me that he views the EPA's legal 
authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is based on the 
endangerment finding, as settled law. Let me say that again. Mr. 
Wheeler assured me that he views the EPA's legal authority to regulate 
greenhouse emissions, which is based on the endangerment finding, as 
settled law.
  I have no reason to doubt Mr. Wheeler's assurances that, at least on 
the question of the endangerment finding, he holds a view that is 
distinct from Bob Murray's, and that is a good thing, at least to me. I 
am sure that I speak not just for myself when I say that I do not feel 
similarly assured by Administrator Pruitt.

[[Page S2097]]

  The Trump White House has said it wants EPA and the Transportation 
Department to negotiate what I would like to call a win-win on CAFE and 
tailpipe standards with California. That means the Trump 
administration's policy must be to leave the endangerment finding alone 
because the endangerment finding is what gives EPA and California the 
authority to write the tailpipe greenhouse gas rules in the first 
place.
  But Administrator Pruitt has repeatedly refused to say this clearly. 
For example, last July, he told Reuters that there might be a legal 
basis to overturn the EPA's endangerment finding decision. When I asked 
him in late January not to overturn it for as long as he is 
Administrator, he refused to make that commitment.
  In preparation for Mr. Wheeler's confirmation, I tried very hard to 
obtain some clarity about just what EPA plans to do with regard to the 
endangerment finding and the Agency's stated efforts to negotiate new 
greenhouse gas vehicle standards with California.
  My staff and I talked to Bill Wehrum, who is the EPA Assistant 
Administer for air--an important job--and with Ryan Jackson, 
Administrator Pruitt's chief of staff. We spent several weeks 
exchanging drafts of a letter that EPA planned to send me that sought 
to do three things, to make clear three things.
  First, the letter affirmed the legal authority EPA used to find that 
the greenhouse gas emissions were dangerous and set vehicle standards. 
That is No. 1.
  Second, the letter affirmed California's Clean Air Act authority to 
set its own, more stringent, vehicle standards.
  And third, the letter committed to negotiate in earnest with 
California using a process not unlike the one used in past efforts to 
preserve a single national set of vehicle standards that automakers in 
California could support--a true win-win.
  We actually reached agreement on the text of that letter with those 
who were negotiating, including Mr. Wehrum, his team, folks from 
California, and others. I am told Administrator Pruitt initially agreed 
to let the letter be sent, but then, maybe a week or two ago, a woman 
named Samantha Dravis, a political appointee at EPA, who I think is 
from Oklahoma and who recently resigned after reports that she failed 
to come to work for some 3 months last year, apparently convinced the 
Administrator to renege on the deal and to not sign the letter.
  Ultimately, a significant part of the reason I cannot support Mr. 
Wheeler is because the Agency refused to follow through on an agreement 
it made with me on issues that are really important to the country, the 
auto industry, and California.
  The truth is, at this point in time, it is not the only reason we 
should not be moving forward with this vote. In the past several weeks, 
each day brings headline after headline. There they are again. This is 
just a handful of headlines. This is a target-rich environment in terms 
of headlines from Scott Pruitt. In the past couple of weeks, each day 
brings headline after headline, scandal after scandal, report after 
report about simply what I think is an unconscionably manner in which 
Mr. Pruitt is running the Agency, as I talked about earlier.
  There have been dozens of calls for his resignation that have come 
from both parties here and in the House. Speculation about how long he 
will be able to remain in the job is at a very high pitch--very high 
pitch. It is entirely possible that Mr. Wheeler might be sworn in as 
Acting Administrator before he spends a single day on the job as Deputy 
Administrator. We will see.
  The truth is, we have never really had the opportunity to ask Mr. 
Wheeler how he would remedy the reports of excessive spending out of 
EPA under Mr. Pruitt's leadership--inappropriate travel, retaliation 
against staff who dare to cross him, unlawful rule repeals, and the 
gross abuses of power Mr. Pruitt has inflicted on this country--if it 
were suddenly Mr. Wheeler's job to right those wrongs, which it will be 
if he is confirmed today.
  Neither Mr. Wheeler nor members of the Environment and Public Works 
Committee were even aware of the extent of many of these problems and 
scandals when his confirmation hearing was held more than 5 months ago 
in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
  Essentially, in my view, the Senate quite simply should not vote 
today on this confirmation until we know which job Mr. Wheeler will be 
filling at the Agency and until we know how he views and how he would 
remedy the overwhelming number of serious problems he will face when he 
arrives there.
  Let me say one last thing, if I could. I am a big believer in win-win 
situations and win-win solutions. I think my colleague who is presiding 
at this moment is also. We partner on a variety of things, including 
trying to promote recycling, not just here in this body but all across 
this country, in ways that create jobs and create economic opportunity.
  I focus a lot--and I think a lot of my colleagues do--on how do we 
create a more nurturing environment for job creation and job 
preservation. We don't create jobs here. Governments and Presidents 
don't create jobs. We try to help create a nurturing environment for 
job creation. One of the elements that is important for having that 
kind of nurturing environment for job creation, frankly, is clean air, 
clean water, and good public health. Another thing that is important is 
certain businesses like certainty and predictability.
  It has been 10 years or more, but I will never forget when I was 
visited by a bunch of utility CEOs from all over the country. They had 
come to talk with me and my staff about clean air legislation covering 
four distinct pollutants. They included mercury, CO2, 
nitrogen oxide, and maybe one more--all types of legislation for 
polluters.
  I had introduced legislation on the heels of President Bush's 
proposal. President Bush proposed multipollutant legislation that he 
called Clear Skies. The version I introduced, with a Republican 
colleague, was called Really Clear Skies. The four pollutants were VOC, 
NOC, mercury, and CO2. That is what it was.
  We had these CEOs from utility companies across the country who came 
to see us. They wanted to talk about our legislation to, over time, 
ratchet down the emission of those pollutants from their utilities. We 
talked for about an hour. At the end of the hour, one of the CEOs of 
the utilities--I think he was from the southern part of the country--
said: Look, let me tell you, Senator, what you should do. Here is what 
you and your colleagues should do with respect to air emissions for 
utilities. He said: Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us 
some flexibility, a reasonable amount of time to meet those 
expectations, and get out of the way. That is what he said: Tell us 
what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of time to 
meet those expectations, some flexibility, and get out of the way.
  With respect to CAFE, what we are doing with fuel efficiency 
requirements for cars, SUVs, and trucks--what we need to keep in mind 
is providing the same kind of certainty and predictability for the auto 
industry inside the country and outside of this country as we expect 
them to increase fuel efficiency over time for cars, trucks, and vans.
  Under current law that we adopted, I want to say, about 10 years ago, 
we ramped up fuel efficiency requirements up through 2025. Between 2021 
and 2025, the increases are pretty significant, pretty steep. The 
current administration wants to almost eliminate entirely those 
increases between 2021 and 2025 and be really silent on what happens 
after that.
  I go to the Detroit auto show almost every year. In Delaware, until a 
couple of years ago, we built more cars, trucks, and vans per capita 
than any other State in the country. I got used to going to the Detroit 
auto show so often that I would know the people who ran Chrysler and GM 
so that if they ever thought about closing their plant in Delaware, we 
actually know whom to talk to. I still go to the Detroit auto show most 
years.

  I went this time and met and talked with representatives from 10 auto 
companies from this country and around the world. We talked about CAFE 
and fuel efficiency requirements going forward. To a company, this is 
what they said to me in private conversation: We need some flexibility 
in the near term, between 2021 and 2025. In return for

[[Page S2098]]

that additional flexibility, we are willing to accept tougher goals 
extending out as long as 2030--near-term flexibility, longer term 
requirement for more rigorous standards. They said: Having said that, 
we don't want to be stuck in a situation where we have to go with one 
car with higher fuel efficiency requirements or see a model for a car, 
truck, or SUV with higher requirements for fuel efficiency for 
California and a different standard for the rest of the country. That 
just doesn't work for their business model. They need to be able to 
build one model, one set of standards for California and the other 49 
States.
  California, where they have had huge air pollution problems over the 
years, wants to have rigorous requirements.
  I said this to the majority leader earlier this week; that there is a 
way to work through all of this with the auto industry, California, the 
other States, with EPA, and the Department of Transportation. There is 
a way to work through all of this that provides a real win-win, that 
preserves jobs in the auto industry--people building cars, trucks, and 
vans--and with respect to California's special concern, provides the 
certainty and predictability the industry needs and also ends up giving 
us more energy-efficient vehicles, cleaner air, and cleaner water--
especially cleaner air. That is a real win-win situation. That is a 
real win-win situation, and that is where we need to go. We need 
leadership at EPA, we need leadership from the administration, 
leadership here, and in States like California to get us there.
  Wayne Gretzky is a great hockey player. I am not a huge hockey fan. I 
watch it a little bit. When Wayne Gretzky was playing, he was believed 
to be the best hockey player anybody had ever even seen, at least in 
this country. His nickname was ``The Great One.'' He took a lot of 
shots. He was not shy about shooting for a goal.
  He was once asked: Mr. Gretzky, why do you take so many shots on 
goals? He said these words: I missed every shot I never took. I missed 
every shot I never took.
  I like to take the shot in a lot of different respects. This is a 
shot we should take, and, if we do, we will do a lot more than score a 
goal. We will score a big win for our country. In the end, for people 
who are driving cars, trucks, and vans in the years to come, we will 
save them a lot of money, and we will have cleaner air and protect a 
lot of jobs that need to be protected and need to be preserved.
  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. UDALL. 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. UDALL. Mr. President, I have come to the floor to talk a little 
bit about Scott Pruitt and his administration over at the EPA as well 
as the current pending nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Deputy Administrator.
  The Environmental Protection Agency is in crisis. Scott Pruitt has 
thrown the Agency into turmoil by gutting its mission to protect public 
health and the environment and by violating ethics and the taxpayers' 
trust. I believe Scott Pruitt must resign. Many of our colleagues have 
said the same. Even the President is questioning whether Mr. Pruitt 
should stay, and that is exactly why I am concerned that the Senate is 
not giving the Deputy Administrator nominee the scrutiny he should 
have. Andrew Wheeler could become the EPA Administrator if Scott Pruitt 
is forced out or resigns. He should be vetted as if he were the 
nominee--and there are many reasons to question whether he belongs at 
the EPA at all.
  Just like Mr. Pruitt, Mr. Wheeler has spent his entire political 
career fighting EPA regulations that protect the environment and 
protect public health. He has lobbied for many years on behalf of 
polluters that the EPA regulates. The American people support clean air 
and clean water. Mr. Wheeler is out of step with the values and 
principles of the American taxpayers.
  I know many Republicans who support environmental protection. We have 
had many decades of bipartisan support for public health, environmental 
protection, clean air, and clean water. Folks don't want their kids to 
have toxic chemicals in their blood or in their bodies. So there is a 
lot of support by Republicans in this area, and it has been a 
bipartisan issue.
  I call on my Republican friends to press the pause button on Andrew 
Wheeler's nomination to be Deputy Administrator of the EPA. Let us join 
together and demand that the President withdraw this nomination and 
nominate someone who supports the basic mission of the EPA.
  It is absolutely clear that Administrator Pruitt does not support the 
mission of the EPA. In fact, as State Attorney General, he prided 
himself in fighting everything EPA was doing and filing a number of 
lawsuits against the EPA.
  We need a person at EPA who respects science and understands that 
climate change is here and now and must be addressed for the sake of 
our children and grandchildren, a person who is not hostile to 
environmental regulation in all forms, and a person who is not beholden 
to special interests. We are supposed to act as a check on the 
executive, so let's do our job.
  When I mention climate change, one of the very first things that 
Administrator Pruitt did when he got in was sabotage a climate change 
website. That website had been in place for 10 years. It had been 
bipartisan through several administrations. They were accumulating the 
best knowledge from scientists in this country and the best knowledge 
from scientists around the world to make it available to the public and 
to make it available to scientists and their researchers.
  When I asked Administrator Pruitt in front of the Appropriations 
subcommittee, ``Now, you have taken this website down. When are you 
going to put it back up,'' he said: ``Oh, we are just updating it. We 
are just updating it,'' and we continue to ask the EPA.
  Now, we are almost a year later--1 year later--and Scott Pruitt still 
refuses to put the website back up. So we really know where he is 
coming from on that issue.
  When Scott Pruitt came before the Senate for confirmation, I voted 
against him because I expected he would work to undermine environmental 
health and protections. Mr. Pruitt has met and far exceeded my worst 
expectations. He lobbied the President to leave the Paris Agreement. 
The United States is now the only country in the world that is not a 
signatory to the Paris Agreement.
  Mr. Pruitt proposed repealing the Clean Power Plan, our Nation's best 
effort to attack climate change. It is an important public health 
measure too. The EPA estimated that the Clean Power Plan could prevent 
2,700 to 6,600 premature deaths and 140,000 to 150,000 asthma attacks 
in children.
  Mr. Pruitt stopped a ban on chlorpyrifos, a dangerous neurotoxic 
pesticide that EPA's own scientists say should be off the market 
because it is linked to brain damage in young children. Chlorpyrifos is 
an example where scientists--and this is what the EPA does--consult 
with scientists outside the Agency, study within the Agency, and try to 
come to conclusions with regard to public health. In the case of 
chlorpyrifos, scientists were increasingly questioning whether it 
should be out there as a pesticide, so they were restricting its use in 
homes, they were restricting its use near schools, and finally they 
decided this is such a dangerous neurotoxin and we should ban it 
outright. So all the work had been done over 30 years.
  Then, here it is, presented to the incoming Administrator--I would 
bet any other Administrator in the history of our country would have 
looked at the information, would have looked at what the science said, 
and they would have banned the chemical. What has Scott Pruitt done? 
Well, what he has done is, he has said we are going to take a look at 
it for another 5 years. That is what he posted on his website. There is 
no evidence that they are doing any review or anything. There is no 
evidence that chlorpyrifos isn't dangerous and should be banned, but 
that is the record he has at the Environmental Protection Agency.
  He has also tried to suspend methane and smog regulations on oil and 
gas wells. He tried to roll back mercury

[[Page S2099]]

pollution rules for powerplants, and he wants to delay rules to protect 
against pesticide exposure and formaldehyde emissions. It is absolutely 
clear, Mr. Pruitt's actions have not respected the rule of law and, 
fortunately, they have been blocked by the courts.
  Now, Mr. Wheeler's environmental record is not much better. It gives 
no confidence that he will put health and safety first.
  Mr. Wheeler has called the Paris climate agreement a ``sweetheart 
deal'' for China.
  He has fought limits on greenhouse gas emissions.
  He is a longtime lobbyist for Murray Energy Corporation--one of the 
dirtiest coal companies in the country--which also has a terrible 
safety record. Murray Energy is the largest privately held coal company 
in the Nation. That raises big questions about conflicts of interest. 
The EPA is now moving to repeal the Clean Power Plan. It would be a big 
win for Big Coal at the expense of the American people.
  Mr. Wheeler opposed reducing poisonous mercury emissions from 
powerplants--regulations Scott Pruitt wants to gut. In fact, I don't 
see anything in Mr. Wheeler's background that indicates he will act as 
our Nation's top environmental protector.
  When Mr. Pruitt was confirmed, we knew he had no problem bending 
ethics rules. His claim to fame in Oklahoma was currying favor with 
moneyed interests and doing their bidding, but the number and extent of 
Mr. Pruitt's ethical lapses might surprise even the most cynical.
  The list of abuses grows daily: lavish first-class flights around the 
world; swanky hotel stays; billing the taxpayers for his personal trips 
home to Oklahoma; a $43,000 soundproof phone booth in his office; 
taking 30 EPA enforcement officers away from investigating polluters to 
serve as his round-the-clock personal security detail--something no 
other EPA Administrator has done; speeding down the streets of 
Washington with sirens and lights blaring to get to fancy restaurants; 
huge, unauthorized salary increases for his friends; and he even 
allowed a close aide to just not come to work for 3 months while still 
getting paid by the taxpayers; detailing EPA staff to find him a place 
to live. While he siphons hundreds of thousands of dollars off the 
taxpayers for special perks for himself, he tries to slash millions of 
dollars for health and safety programs for the American people.
  Even his own staff has balked at his extravagances, and the 
Administrator has met their resistance by retaliating against them, 
changing their duties, sidelining them. Mr. Pruitt has treated the EPA 
like his own little personal fiefdom, and EPA employees are like serfs 
who cater to his whims.
  Former EPA Administrator under President George W. Bush, Christine 
Todd Whitman, recently called his spending ``absolutely ridiculous.'' 
That is what Christine Todd Whitman said, ``absolutely ridiculous.'' 
She charged that his conduct is part of ``an extraordinarily ethically 
tone deaf administration.''
  It is time for Scott Pruitt's imperial tenure to end. It is time for 
him to resign and high time for the President to stop defending him and 
to demand his resignation. But Mr. Pruitt should not be replaced by 
someone who does not support the basic mission of the Agency--to 
protect the environment and public health. That is what the EPA 
Administrator should be focused on; it is absolutely clear.

  The EPA's first Administrator, William Ruckelshaus, a Nixon 
appointee, has sounded warnings about what is going on at the EPA. He 
said: ``My principal concern is that Pruitt and the people he's hired 
to work with him don't fundamentally agree with the mission of the 
agency.''
  The American people value that mission. They want clean air and clean 
water. They want the health of their children and our seniors 
protected. It is our responsibility to make sure the EPA protects the 
American people.
  I urge my friends and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
do our job--to put the nomination of Andrew Wheeler on hold and to work 
together to demand that the President nominate a Deputy Administrator 
who will have the trust and confidence of the American people and to 
work to keep their air and water clean and their families safe and 
healthy.
  There are a couple of articles that I think show what has been 
happening over at the EPA.
  This article says that ``nearly a year into the Trump administration, 
mentions of climate change have been systemically removed, altered or 
played down on websites across the federal government.'' As I said 
earlier, they have taken down this huge, bipartisan project that was in 
place for 10 years, gotten rid of it and claim they are updating it, 
but they haven't done anything after a year.
  The article goes on to quote a report by Environmental Data & 
Governance Initiative: ``Removing information regarding climate from 
federal websites does not affect the reality of climate change, but may 
serve to obfuscate the subject and inject doubt regarding the 
scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is 
caused by human activity.''
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the January 10, 2018, 
article by the New York Times be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 10, 2018]

 How Much Has `Climate Change' Been Scrubbed From Federal Websites? A 
                                  Lot.

                          (By Coral Davenport)

       Washington.--Nearly a year into the Trump administration, 
     mentions of climate change have been systematically removed, 
     altered or played down on websites across the federal 
     government, according to a report made public Wednesday.
       The findings of the report, by the Environmental Data and 
     Governance Initiative, an international coalition of 
     researchers and activist groups, are in keeping with the 
     policies of a president who has proudly pursued an agenda of 
     repealing environmental regulations, opening protected lands 
     and waters to oil and gas drilling, withdrawing the United 
     States from the Paris climate accord, shrinking the 
     boundaries of federal monuments, and appointing top officials 
     who have questioned or denied the established science of 
     human-caused climate change.
       The authors of the study said that the removal of the words 
     ``climate change'' from government websites, and a widespread 
     effort to delete or bury information on climate change 
     programs, would quite likely have a detrimental impact.
       ``We have found significant loss of public access to 
     information about climate change,'' the authors wrote.
       ``Why are these federal agencies putting so much effort 
     into `science cleansing' instead of using time and resources 
     to fulfill agency responsibilities, such as protecting the 
     environment and advancing energy security?'' they wrote. 
     ``Removing information regarding climate change from federal 
     websites does not affect the reality of climate change, but 
     may serve to obfuscate the subject and inject doubt regarding 
     the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and 
     that it is caused by human activity.''
       The report tracks the Environmental Protection Agency's 
     removal of hundreds of websites connected to state and local 
     climate change programs; the removal of information about 
     international climate change programs from the State 
     Department, Energy Department and E.P.A. websites; and the 
     deletion of the words ``climate change'' from websites 
     throughout the federal government.
       In many cases, the report found, ``climate change'' was 
     replaced by vaguer terms such as ``sustainability.''
       In a separate report, also made public Wednesday, the group 
     found that the Bureau of Land Management had deleted its 
     climate change website and removed text about the importance 
     of climate change mitigation from its main site.
       The researchers took care to note that raw government data 
     on climate change, such as historical records of temperatures 
     and emissions levels, had not been deleted. However, Toly 
     Rinberg, a co-author of the report, said: ``The data is 
     certainly less accessible. Links to websites that host the 
     data have been removed. That data is still available online 
     but it's been made harder to find on the agency's websites.''
       Trump administration officials have noted that it is the 
     administration's prerogative to highlight its agenda--
     repealing climate change policies and promoting the 
     exploration of oil, gas and coal--on its websites. The Obama 
     administration sought to promote climate change policies and 
     elevate the issue in the public eye, but the Trump 
     administration is under no obligation to continue that 
     effort.
       And some information about government programs related to 
     climate change, while no longer easily found on the main 
     federal agencies' websites, was still accessible. Liz Bowman, 
     a spokeswoman for the E.P.A., said in an email that pages 
     were ``archived and available'' on the agency's website.
       But the report concluded that of all federal agencies, the 
     E.P.A.--the agency charged with protecting the nation's 
     environment and public health--had removed the most 
     information about climate change. An E.P.A.

[[Page S2100]]

     website once titled ``Climate and Energy Resources for State, 
     Local and Tribal Governments,'' which included prominent 
     links to programs like ``Climate Showcase Communities,'' now 
     contains no mention of the term ``climate change'' and no 
     prominent links to state and local climate information.
       The E.P.A. has also removed a website on the Clean Power 
     Plan, the Obama administration's signature climate change 
     regulation, which was designed to reduce planet-warming 
     pollution from power plants. The Trump administration has put 
     forth a legal plan to repeal that regulation, and part of 
     that process includes a public comment period. The new report 
     suggests that when people cannot easily find the original 
     rule on the E.P.A.'s website, they may be less likely to 
     submit comments against repealing it.
       ``Beyond reducing access to actionable information, 
     removing public web resources can undermine democratic 
     institutions such as notice-and-comment rulemaking,'' the 
     report's authors wrote.

  Mr. UDALL. A September 27, 2017, article by Reuters with regard to 
EPA workforce reductions describes EPA's workforce declining to levels 
not seen in decades. The article says:

       In June, the EPA unveiled a buyout program that would 
     contribute to the biggest cuts of any federal agency in 
     President Donald Trump's 2018 proposal. The EPA employs about 
     15,000 people.
       After buyouts and retirements, that number could drop to 
     14,428 by October, the official, who spoke on condition of 
     anonymity, said in an email.
       That would be below the fiscal 1988 level, when EPA 
     staffing was 14,440, the official noted.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the September 27, 2017, 
article by Reuters with regard to EPA workforce reductions be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                     [From Reuters, Sept. 27, 2017]

                            (By Eric Walsh)

     EPA Workforce Shrinking to Reagan-Era Levels--Agency Official

       Washington.--The workforce at the U.S. Environmental 
     Protection Agency is on course to fall to its lowest level 
     since Ronald Reagan was president, an agency official said on 
     Tuesday.
       In June, the EPA unveiled a buyout program that would 
     contribute to the biggest cuts of any federal agency in 
     President Donald Trump's 2018 budget proposal. The EPA 
     employs about 15,000 people.
       After buyouts and retirements, that number could drop to 
     14,428 by October, the official, who spoke on condition of 
     anonymity, said in an email.
       That would be below the fiscal 1988 level, when EPA 
     staffing was 14,440, the official noted. A further 2,998 
     employees, or just over 20 percent of the total, are eligible 
     to retire now, the official said.
       In an April spending bill, the Republican-controlled 
     Congress set a cap for EPA staffing at 15,000 employees for 
     fiscal year 2017, rejecting proposed increases by the 
     previous administration of Democratic President Barack Obama.
       EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said the reductions were 
     ``giving long-serving, hard-working employees the opportunity 
     to retire early.
       ``We're proud to report that we're reducing the size of 
     government, protecting taxpayer dollars and staying true to 
     our core mission of protecting the environment and American 
     jobs,'' he said in a separate statement.
       Pruitt has rolled back a slew of Obama-era regulations 
     limiting carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels.
       He was also instrumental in convincing Trump to withdraw 
     the United States from the Paris climate accord--a global 
     pact to stem planetary warming through emissions cuts.
       While acknowledging the planet is warming, Pruitt has 
     questioned the gravity of the problem and the need for 
     regulations that require companies to take costly measures to 
     reduce their carbon footprint.
       Before becoming head of the EPA, he was Oklahoma's attorney 
     general and repeatedly sued the agency he now runs to block 
     federal environmental rules.

  Mr. UDALL. So here we have an attempt by Administrator Pruitt to 
emasculate the Agency by chasing off some of the best and brightest 
scientists, buying out people, doing everything he can to intimidate 
people to leave the Agency, and we are at a point in time where we have 
a staffing level equivalent to 1988. This is the Agency that protects 
our water and our air, makes sure the water and air are clean, and 
protects our children from toxic chemicals. This is a pretty remarkable 
record.
  I ask my Republican colleagues to reconsider the Wheeler nomination, 
to put a hold on it, to have the proper vetting, and let's find the 
kind of individual who is going to respect the mission of the Agency 
and move us forward in the direction of public health, protecting the 
environment and our air and water.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sasse). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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. MARKEY. Mr. President, Scott Pruitt is the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency. He is charged with running the Agency 
and ensuring its mission. There are serious questions about Mr. 
Pruitt's leadership, but we will get to that later.
  Today, the Senate is preparing to vote on the nominee to be the 
second highest ranking official at the Environmental Protection 
Agency--Andrew Wheeler. As the No. 2 at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Andrew Wheeler deserves the kind of scrutiny that reflects a 
position one step away from Administrator.
  Andrew Wheeler has spent years protecting the coal industry--first 
from here in the Senate, where he worked to prevent passage of climate 
legislation, and then as a lobbyist for Murray Energy, one of the 
largest coal companies in America, which has led the fight by the coal 
industry to undo the progress we have made on climate policy.
  Andrew Wheeler's coal credentials are without equal. He is without 
question a member of the coal industry's hall of fame. He was even 
present in March of last year at the meeting where Murray Energy CEO 
Bob Murray presented Energy Secretary Rick Perry with the now-infamous 
secret plan to save the coal industry.
  Sadly, I am concerned that Andrew Wheeler's background means that he 
will never understand that saving coal is not the Environmental 
Protection Agency's job. It is the EPA's job to regulate coal, to 
protect public health and the environment, to keep particulate matter 
from filling the lungs of children in our most vulnerable communities--
more than 7,500 people die every year from the pollution from fossil 
fuel powerplants--to reduce the harmful carbon pollution that is 
causing climate change, and to end the toxic coal-mining practices that 
are poisoning our waters and our communities.
  The corporate special interests, who have worked hand-in-hand with 
the Trump administration to block clean energy deployment and force 
Americans to breathe dirty air from fossil fuel combustion, are exactly 
the opposite of what we need to be at the head of the Environmental 
Protection Agency. They are, at the same time, the companies that 
Andrew Wheeler has represented. Andrew Wheeler has made a career of 
promoting the policies that make our air and our water dirty and that 
endanger the public's health.
  Now, with Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt 
under siege as a result of Agency mismanagement and scandal, we must 
have real concern about who will be No. 2 at the EPA. Who is on deck to 
take over if Scott Pruitt has to leave? Who is going to be sitting 
there in the chair as the Administrator to make these decisions about 
clean air, clean water, about the role which coal plays in polluting 
our environment? Who will that be if Scott Pruitt were to be removed 
from his position or resign from his position? And, by the way, that is 
a position from which I strongly support that he be removed--that he 
resign--but that would then lead to the consequence that Andrew Wheeler 
would most likely be the new Administrator of the EPA. This individual 
would then be in charge of the environment of our country. He would be 
in charge of it. The coal industry would have their person running the 
Environmental Protection Agency. That is unbelievable. That is the 
dream of the coal industry--that, finally, after all these years, they 
get the guy to be in charge of the environment, as the country and the 
world are moving in just the opposite direction.
  Now, would he have been vetted for that role as the head of the EPA? 
Absolutely not. He is out here on a snoozy Thursday afternoon with his 
name out here to be considered with the Galleries empty of either 
publicity, citizens, or the press paying attention to the debate when 
the consequences of this decision that the Senate is about

[[Page S2101]]

to make is of historic magnitude. This man is the coal industry. If you 
Google the word ``coal,'' his picture comes up. Coal, ladies and 
gentlemen, has declined from 50 percent of all electrical generation 
down to 30 percent just over the last 10 years. Why? Well, because 
utilities in America are moving toward wind. They are moving toward 
solar. They are moving toward energy conservation. They are moving 
toward natural gas, which has half of the pollutants of coal. The coal 
industry has met its maker in the marketplace. The utilities themselves 
have moved toward cleaner sources of electrical generation in our 
country, and the only way that they can stave off this revolution, in 
their minds, is to have a coal industry representative be the head of 
the Environmental Protection Agency. Talk about the fox guarding the 
chicken coop. Talk about some kind of upside-down, bizarro world, 
where, all of a sudden, at the Environmental Protection Agency, the one 
industry that has most contributed to the greenhouse gases up in our 
atmosphere over the last 100 years, now has someone who is next in line 
to take over the entire Environmental Protection Agency.
  So Scott Pruitt is under siege, and we have not asked Mr. Wheeler 
about his readiness to lead the EPA or how his policies would be 
different from those of Mr. Pruitt. We don't have any reason to believe 
his views are any different than Mr. Pruitt's. Does he agree with the 
policy direction Mr. Pruitt has taken at the Agency? Does he agree with 
the exorbitant costs associated with the questionable activities 
Administrator Pruitt has engaged in as head of this Agency?
  There is a lot that Andrew Wheeler has yet to answer to if he were to 
take over as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, which 
brings us to the embattled EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt himself.
  Mr. Pruitt's leadership at the EPA has made that Agency as toxic as a 
superfund site. Administrator Pruitt has consistently undermined the 
core mission of the EPA--to protect the environment and to protect the 
health and the safety of all Americans. He has put the interests of the 
fossil fuel, chemical, and auto industries above the needs of the 
public's health.
  Perhaps the best example of Scott Pruitt's war on good, bipartisan 
policy is his full frontal attack on fuel economy emissions standards. 
Last week, Administrator Pruitt and the Trump administration began the 
process of rolling back these historic standards. In 2007, I worked on 
a bipartisan basis to enact a provision in the energy law that 
increased our Nation's fuel economy standards for the first time in 32 
years. It is one of the laws that I am most proud of. I was then 
serving in the House of Representatives and I was able to work with 
Nancy Pelosi and able to work with John Dingell to push through that 
measure. Over here in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein, working with 
Senator Stevens and others, were able to bring together a consensus 
that changed the direction of fuel economy standards in our country. 
They had not been increased in 32 years because of the viselike grip 
that the auto industry and the oil industry had on public policymaking 
with regard to pollution over the preceding 32 years. It was a tragedy. 
It was a disgrace. It was harmful to the health of Americans, to the 
national security of Americans, and to the economy of Americans. Yet 
they had the power to do it.
  But this world changed for the first time in 2007. Then building on 
that law, in 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency and the 
Department of Transportation began negotiating a historic agreement 
with State regulators, automakers, labor unions, and the environmental 
community. In 2012, the landmark fuel economy emissions of 54.5 miles 
per gallon by 2025 got placed on the books. Consulting with States, 
auto manufacturers, environmental groups, and other experts, the EPA 
and the National Academies of Sciences have proved beyond a doubt that 
the existing standards are appropriate. Automakers are meeting these 
standards more quickly and at a lower cost than predicted. These fuel 
economy standards are technically feasible. They are economically 
achievable. They have revived the competitiveness of our domestic auto 
industry, which has added 700,000 new jobs since 2010 and sold a record 
number of vehicles in 2015 and again in 2016.

  But Scott Pruitt is threatening American consumers, our national 
security, and our climate by trying to slam the brakes and make a U-
turn on this critical policy. We cannot allow Scott Pruitt to put us in 
reverse on these strong standards. But it doesn't stop there.
  Time after time, Scott Pruitt has undermined the core mission of the 
EPA to protect the environment, to protect the health and the safety of 
all Americans. The litany of Scott Pruitt's sins is a Big Oil wish 
list: repealing the Clean Power Plan; supporting withdrawal from the 
Paris climate accord; weakening the Clean Water Act; allowing more 
toxic pollution in our streams and our wetlands; loosening standards 
for hazardous pollutants like mercury, arsenic, and lead that 
corporations can spew into our air. With Scott Pruitt's actions at the 
EPA, more Americans would get sick, more children could get asthma, and 
more people could die. He has shut out the public from the EPA's 
rulemakings and decisions. During his tenure, the EPA has hidden 
countless thousands of pages of publicly funded reports on climate 
science and other topics from the EPA's main web page.
  Now it is emerging that he has betrayed the trust of the American 
people by pursuing ethically questionable behavior while heading this 
Agency. His mismanagement of the EPA, his intimidation of scientists, 
among whom fear is rampant, and his insistence on undermining key 
environmental policies is unacceptable. It is impossible to have any 
confidence in him to lead this Agency. It is time that we issue an 
eviction notice, change the locks, and kick Scott Pruitt out of the 
EPA. It is time for him to go.
  Amid this dark cloud, it is up to the Senate to ensure that anyone 
who is going to be responsible for overseeing our Nation's 
environmental policy is properly vetted for that position. Without more 
questioning and more examination, we do not know if Andrew Wheeler is 
that individual. Ultimately, I cannot vote for a lobbyist for the coal 
industry to lead the Agency that is tasked with making sure that carbon 
pollution is regulated. So that is the decision that we are being 
called upon to make here. It is like a shadow confirmation vote for the 
next Administrator of the EPA. It is an attempt to slip by at the end 
of the week, with Members of the Senate wanting to get home, the 
nomination and confirmation of a man who stands for just the opposite 
of what the credentials of a candidate to run the EPA should be.
  We have a massive wind revolution in our country. We have 260,000 
people now working in the solar industry in America. There are 50,000 
coal miners, 260,000 people in solar, and 100,000 people in wind. Most 
of the wind and solar jobs were created over the last 10 years. Which 
direction does President Trump go? Which direction does Scott Pruitt 
go? Which direction will Andrew Wheeler, the heir apparent to Scott 
Pruitt, go? It goes toward coal and not wind, not solar, not renewable 
energy, not this greatest creation of blue-collar jobs in two 
generations in a single job sector.
  Two percent of all new workers in America last year were solar 
workers who got hired, and they are good jobs. Who are they? They are 
electricians up on the roof. They are people who are carpenters. They 
are putting together the equipment. They are blue-collar workers. They 
are high-paying, secure, long-term jobs.
  The President, however, looks to the coal industry with 50,000 coal 
miners and says: I am going to put in place a man who is committed to 
protecting that industry while destroying the wind, the solar, and the 
renewable industry in general and by saying to the automotive industry 
that you do not have to any longer increase dramatically the fuel 
economy standards of the vehicles which we drive in our country.
  Elon Musk and all these smart, technologically savvy people in our 
country who are reinventing the way in which we drive are being told: 
No, the standard is too high. Your goal cannot be achieved. We are 
going to roll back those goals. That is Scott Pruitt. That is Andrew 
Wheeler. That is Donald Trump. That is what this debate is about here 
on the floor. It is a debate about the future of our country. It is a 
debate about the future of our planet. 

[[Page S2102]]

It is about the future, about the direction in which we are going to be 
heading. Are we going to be looking at the world through a rearview 
mirror, back toward a technology of the 19th century, coal, or are we 
going to be looking toward the future? That future is one of solar and 
wind, renewable energy, and all-electric vehicles. It is a revolution 
that saves the planet, creates jobs, protects our security by backing 
out of importing oil from other countries.

  The fuel economy standards in our country that are on the books right 
now that Scott Pruitt and Donald Trump want to roll back, back out 3\1/
2\ million barrels of oil a day that we never have to import from OPEC 
and the Middle East. Do you know how many barrels of oil we import each 
day from the Middle East? Three and one-half million barrels of oil. 
That should be our goal.
  Right now, the President is debating whether he should have more 
missile strikes in Syria in the Middle East and what the impact would 
be in Iran and Saudi Arabia, but, meanwhile, simultaneously, out here 
on the floor, we are debating a nominee who is going to be the hand-
picked successor to Scott Pruitt to water down those fuel economy 
standards, water down that protection, which were given to young men 
and women so they will not have to go over to the Middle East in order 
to protect those ships of oil which come into our country. That is just 
morally indefensible when we know these revolutions are moving, they 
are creating jobs, and they are working.
  That is why this nomination today goes right to the heart of the 
future of our country and the future of our planet. That is who Andrew 
Wheeler is. He represents the worst of what this Trump administration 
is trying to do to our country.
  We should be the leader, not the lagger. We should be the point of 
light for the planet, going to a goal that we know can then be 
exploited around the rest of the world. That is what the 21st century 
should be all about, where children have to look back in the history 
books to find that there ever was a time when we were burning coal that 
was polluting the lungs of children and the planet, when we had a 
chance to move toward wind, solar, renewable energy, and all-electric 
vehicles. That should be our goal today. That is why I urge, in the 
strongest possible terms, a rejection of his nomination.
  We should be having a full-blown debate, not this truncated process 
that is being imposed upon us here today. This is just plain wrong. 
This nomination is too important. This is the heart of what the green 
generation in America wants us to debate. Which way are we going, 
backward or forward? Which way are we going, toward a clean planet or a 
further polluting of the planet?
  In his encyclical, Pope Francis made it very clear, No. 1, that the 
world is dangerously wanting; No. 2, that it is being caused largely by 
human activity; and, No. 3, that we have a moral responsibility to do 
something about it as the principal polluter over the last 100 years; 
because, No. 4, those who are going to be most adversely affected are 
the poorest and most vulnerable on the planet, and we have to do 
something about it.
  That is why a ``no'' vote today is correct, because Andrew Wheeler is 
going to take us in the wrong direction, just the opposite of where 
Pope Francis urges us to go.
  I yield the rest of my time to Senator Carper.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Perdue). The Senator so yields.
  The Senator from Maryland.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. President, I want to start by thanking my 
colleague from Massachusetts for the clarity and passion he brings to 
this debate.
  I, too, am here to strongly oppose the nomination of Andrew Wheeler 
to be the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
  Before I talk about Mr. Wheeler, I want to join my colleague from 
Massachusetts to talk a little bit about Scott Pruitt and the current 
management over the EPA. Because the people of our country rely on a 
strong, effective, and healthy EPA to keep our air and water clean and 
to make sure people are not living among toxic substances, we need 
strong leadership there.
  In the State of Maryland, the EPA is also important to protect a 
great national and natural treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. The bay States 
include many of the States in this area. We have made great progress 
over the years through the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program. It was 
recognized many years ago that when you have a bay such as the 
Chesapeake, where multiple States feed into it, so that when you see 
pollution in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, or Virginia, it ends up 
in the bay, you need a national response, and you need an agency like 
the EPA to bring people together. That is why the EPA's Chesapeake Bay 
Program was created. Yet we now have a Director of the EPA, Scott 
Pruitt, who doesn't recognize the vital and unique role the EPA plays 
in protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
  We know that because, if you look at the budget Scott Pruitt and 
President Trump submitted to the Congress, they zeroed out funding--
zeroed out funding--a big goose egg for the EPA Chesapeake Bay funding. 
That is what they did in year 1.
  Then, when Senator Cardin and I and others said: This is a really 
important national effort; in fact, it has had bipartisan support in 
the Congress, it has bipartisan support among the Governors of all the 
Chesapeake Bay States, then they said: OK. We are going to provide just 
10 percent of the moneys that had been provided for that program.
  This is a $73 million-a-year program. It actually needs more to 
achieve its full effectiveness, but Administrator Pruitt and President 
Trump provided only $7.3 million in their budget, which would devastate 
the bay program.
  Fortunately, on a bipartisan basis, this Senate and the House of 
Representatives have continued full funding for the Chesapeake Bay 
Program for the past 2 years. I thank my colleagues for recognizing the 
vital importance of that program, not just to the bay States but really 
to protecting a national treasure.
  I guess it shouldn't be surprising that Scott Pruitt's first budget 
zeroed out funding for Chesapeake Bay protection because, back when he 
was the attorney general of Oklahoma, he filed an amicus brief in a 
case that would have neutered the ability of the EPA to actually 
enforce the pollution protection standards for the Chesapeake Bay.
  We can set forth all sorts of standards, we can set forth all sorts 
of restrictions in terms of pollution that can fall into the bay, but 
if you don't have the ability to enforce it, it means nothing. It means 
people can pollute with impunity.
  Even before he took the current job, Scott Pruitt telegraphed to all 
of us that he didn't care about enforcing pollution standards for the 
Chesapeake Bay.
  We have also seen other recent actions where it is clear he has a 
disregard for adequate protections for clean air and water. The Senator 
from Massachusetts was just talking about a recent proposal to roll 
back the auto emission standards, auto emission standards that are 
essential to addressing the challenge of climate change, that are also 
vital to making sure we have energy independence--standards, by the 
way, that would save consumers a whole lot of money that would 
otherwise be going to the oil companies and the gas companies.
  In fact, those new emission standards would save the average American 
family $300 per year. Apparently, Mr. Pruitt and President Trump want 
to see those $300 come out of the pockets of American consumers and go 
right to the bank accounts of big oil companies.
  It is maybe not surprising, given the very close relationship between 
Administrator Pruitt and the Koch brothers, who worked very hard and 
worked over time on his confirmation to be EPA Administrator. With 
Administrator Pruitt, they are getting the policies they want--policies 
that are not good for the health of the American people but very good 
for the bottom line of the Koch brothers and some of the biggest oil 
companies in the country.
  The Chesapeake Bay and the rolling back of the auto emission 
standards are just two examples of a record that fails the American 
public when it comes to the environment under this current EPA.
  I also want to talk about the work environment today at the 
Environmental Protection Agency because my State of Maryland is the 
home to many

[[Page S2103]]

terrific public servants--Federal employees, including many dedicated 
employees of the EPA. You can listen to them, but you can read about 
accounts in many of the publications we have seen about the incredibly 
low morale at the EPA.
  Leadership starts at the top, and Scott Pruitt has taken an agency 
with strong morale and led it down the tubes. I guess it is not 
surprising, since he has been seeking to cut the EPA team, the 
professionals there, by roughly 20 percent. I should say, he is talking 
about cutting those folks who are working every day on behalf of the 
American people at the same time he is increasing the number of 
political appointees at the EPA--people who really do nothing more than 
the politics of the Administrator. So he is increasing the number of 
high-paid political appointees while proposing to cut, by 20 percent, 
the EPA workforce that looks out for the American people.
  Under his directorship, already 700 employees have left the Agency 
either because they found it a hostile place to work or were actually 
forced out. So I do find it ironic that the Agency that is supposed to 
protect the country from toxic pollution has created a toxic 
environment under its own roof.
  Beyond my concerns about how he actually manages his staff, concerns 
about undermining protections for the Chesapeake Bay and other 
environmental efforts, we have seen a total disregard for basic public 
ethics from the current Administrator. His conduct is not appropriate 
for a public official and has violated the public trust time and again. 
It seems every day now, when you open a newspaper or look online, you 
can find another example of the current Administrator abusing the 
public trust.
  We have to ask ourselves whether Andrew Wheeler is going to be 
someone at the EPA who addresses those serious problems we have with 
the current Administrator. How will he help stabilize the situation? 
Will he be any kind of counterbalance on these important issues? The 
clear answer, from the record, is no. In fact, the clear answer is that 
Mr. Wheeler would just reinforce Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts. One 
might say he is a carbon copy of Mr. Pruitt. And when we look at his 
history--Mr. Wheeler's history--we find a very cozy relationship 
between the nominee, Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Pruitt, the current 
Administrator, and an army of lobbyists for the coal industry. In fact, 
Mr. Wheeler, as we have noted, has been a lobbyist for that industry. 
When we look at his relationships, we find that he was advising Murray 
Energy. Murray Energy was at that time a top donor to Scott Pruitt's 
super PAC. This was before Mr. Pruitt became the Administrator of the 
EPA. He had a super PAC. Murray Energy, for whom Mr. Wheeler lobbied, 
was one of the top donors to that Pruitt super PAC.

  The relationship between Pruitt and Wheeler and Bob Murray gets even 
cozier when we see that Bob Murray was a co-plaintiff in 8 of the 14 
lawsuits that Pruitt brought against the EPA before Pruitt became the 
Administrator. So I want to get this right. We have Mr. Wheeler, who is 
the lobbyist for Mr. Murray, and Mr. Murray joined with Pruitt in 
filing 8 of 14 lawsuits against the EPA. So we can see that we have a 
very cozy relationship there and one that will only reinforce, not 
counterbalance, Mr. Pruitt's worst instincts at the EPA.
  Among those challenges is the question of climate change. Just 
yesterday, in the Environment and Public Works Committee, we had a 
hearing. We had a hearing on using Federal incentives to have more 
carbon sequestration, to try to take carbon out of the environment, and 
carbon recapturing technology.
  What was interesting was that every single one of the witnesses--
those called by the majority and those called by the minority--every 
one of them, when asked whether climate change represented a serious 
threat, answered yes. All of them acknowledged that human activity was 
contributing to that climate change--every one of the witnesses, right 
down the table.
  It is also interesting that that legislation, which has bipartisan 
support, uses taxpayer dollars and, combined with the tax measures we 
passed recently, creates tax incentives for carbon capture. So we are 
agreeing on a bipartisan basis to use public funds for the purpose of 
reducing carbon pollution. The only reason to do that would be that we 
agree carbon pollution represents a threat.
  I will tell my colleagues who believes carbon pollution represents a 
threat: the U.S. military. I represent the Naval Academy. A little 
while back, I went out there and talked to the head of the Naval 
Academy, who talked about the fact that even today, sea level rise is 
creating threats, and we can actually see the results of sea level rise 
with the flash flooding down in Annapolis, MD, which is home to the 
Naval Academy. That is just one small example. Yet, if we look at Mr. 
Wheeler's record and statements, we find just another person with their 
head in the sand, and that is not the kind of person we should have as 
the No. 2 at our national Environmental Protection Agency.
  I was looking to see if the No. 2 appointment might provide some kind 
of counterbalance to Mr. Pruitt. Unfortunately, everything we find 
shows not only that they had this prior, very cozy relationship--
lobbyist, Attorney General, and a lot of coal industry companies--but 
on all of the issues that are important to protecting the health of the 
American people, we have a Deputy nominee who is actually going to take 
us in the wrong direction.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to oppose the nomination of Andrew 
Wheeler.
  I yield the remainder of my postcloture time to Mr. Carper.
  I see that Mr. Leahy is on the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.