[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.