[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 199 (Thursday, December 12, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7008-S7009]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF AURELIA SKIPWITH
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to share with the Senate my reasons
for opposing the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to serve as the
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed to find myself in this
position. When I had the privilege of serving as Governor of Delaware,
I was able to assemble my own leadership team, so I appreciate how
important it is that people in executive positions, including
Presidents, have that same ability.
However, in article II of the Constitution, our Founders set up a
system in which the President would nominate individuals to the top
posts in our government and Senators would provide ``advice and
consent'' on those nominees.
In order for the Senate to fulfill that constitutional role, those
nominated individuals must cooperate with the confirmation process.
And, unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has not provided information requested
by the Democrats during the nomination process.
Despite my repeated requests for the nominee to be more forthcoming--
requests made twice in writing and twice in person. during her
nomination process--Ms. Skipwith has refused. Instead, she has given me
the impression that she does not take this confirmation process
seriously.
Her lack of candor has elevated questions that already existed about
her qualifications, her commitment to environmental conservation and
whether she can ethically lead the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Therefore, I cannot support this nomination.
Ms. Skipwith first joined the Trump administration in April 2017.
when she was appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish and
Wildlife and Parks, a non-Senate-confirmed political appointment at the
Department of the Interior.
During her tenure there, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed and
finalized controversial regulations that drastically altered
implementation of the Endangered Species Act.
The Service has also issued a legal opinion that changes the way the
Department of the Interior enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Former senior Interior officials from every administration since the
early 1970s, both Republican and Democrat, have strongly opposed this
Migratory Bird Treaty Act legal opinion. At her confirmation hearing,
Ms. Skipwith vehemently defended it.
Prior to her controversial tenure at the Interior Department, Ms.
Skipwith had no previous work experience related to conservation or
wildlife management--none.
By contrast, the 16 individuals who previously served as Fish and
Wildlife Service Directors for both Republican and Democratic
Presidents had an estimated average of 12 years of experience at the
Fish and Wildlife Service before taking on the Director role. They also
have an estimated average of more than 22 years of professional
experience in fields related to wildlife or fisheries management.
Ms. Skipwith has also not seemed to make up for her lack of previous
experience while on the job. At her confirmation hearing, when asked to
name the conservation scientist who had most influenced her career and
her approach to wildlife and fisheries management, Ms. Skipwith
struggled to name any conservation scientist. Ultimately, she named a
former Monsanto vice president with whom she used to work, but she
misremembered his name.
This was not an insignificant misstep. To me, it was revealing. Ms.
Skipwith's response to my simple question represented a clear lack of
familiarity with the basics of wildlife management, a troubling quality
for a Fish and Wildlife Director nominee.
By contrast, Ms. Skipwith does have significant experience in the
agribusiness industry. Before joining the Trump administration, she
worked for Monsanto, one of the world's largest agrochemical firms.
Monsanto regularly has business interests before the Interior
Department. She also worked for Alltech, a Kentucky-based agricultural
products company.
She also co-founded AVC Global, an agribusiness-technology start up,
and was employed by Gage International, a Washington, DC, based
lobbying firm founded by her fiance.
That is why even before her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms.
Skipwith some basic questions about how these companies operate and
[[Page S7009]]
whether Ms. Skipwith has recused herself from working on those issues.
Unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has refused to answer those questions.
She has repeatedly refused to provide her calendars with the
appointments she has had as a Department of the Interior official. This
information could be made available to any member of the public under
the Freedom of Information Act, but she has refused to provide it to me
for months within the confirmation process.
This information is important because Ms. Skipwith's former employer,
Gage International, has represented water utilities that have lobbied
Congress to weaken Western water policy and the Endangered Species Act.
Unanswered questions also remain about Ms. Skipwith's role in the
development of a controversial repeal of an existing ban on using
pesticides that have been shown to harm birds and bees in national
wildlife refuges. And one of the largest producers of these pesticides
is Monsanto, another one of Ms. Skipwith's former employers.
Yet when Senator Gillibrand asked Ms. Skipwith about her role in the
ban's repeal, Ms. Skipwith defended the reversal but denied any role in
the decision. This answer does not appear to be consistent with some of
the email records that have been obtained under Freedom of Information
Act, which show that she expressed interest in the matter and received
materials on the issue from career staff.
If Ms. Skipwith was indeed involved with the decision to reverse the
pesticides ban, it would constitute a violation of the ethics pledge
she signed when she joined the Department. An examination of Ms.
Skipwith's calendar entries could clear up these outstanding questions,
but her lack of cooperation makes that impossible.
This lack of being forthcoming is troubling, not only because it
undermines the Senate's advice and consent role for Presidential
nominees, but it also because it demonstrates the nominee's may not be
cooperative when it comes to congressional oversight.
I have found that, when a nominee is unwilling to provide information
as part of their confirmation process, they almost always prove to be
even more defiant to congressional oversight requests after they are
confirmed.
I urge my colleagues. especially my Republican colleagues, to take
this matter seriously. In fact, I would urge my Republican colleagues
to remember these words spoken by my friend, former Congressman Trey
Gowdy of South Carolina.
In June 2012, during the House Oversight and Government Reform
Committee contempt proceedings against Attorney General Holder, then
Congressman Gowdy said: ``The notion that you can withhold information
and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in
power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean
something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.''
Eventually, whether it is in 1 year or in 4 years or in 8, we will
eventually have another Democratic administration. And when that time
comes, Republicans in Congress will want officials in that Democratic
administration to answer questions and respond to congressional
oversight requests.
I fear that my Senate colleagues will find the process completely
broken by then if we continue undermining our duty as Senators to both
provide advice and consent on Presidential nomination and to conduct
congressional oversight.
This clear defiance of our sworn constitutional duty and
congressional oversight role diminishes the Senate, weakens our
intricate system of checks and balances, and undermines the trust of
the American people.
Beyond her lack of qualifications and her questionable role in some
of this administration's major conservation policies, there are too
many troubling concerns and questions about this nominee that remain
unaddressed or unanswered.
Therefore, I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote
that was going to start at 11:45 a.m. start now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the Skipwith
nomination?
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Paul),
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. Shelby).
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Booker),
the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Duckworth), the Senator from Minnesota
(Ms. Klobuchar), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Sanders), and the
Senator from Massachusetts (Ms. Warren) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Fischer). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 52, nays 39, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 395 Ex.]
YEAS--52
Alexander
Barrasso
Blackburn
Blunt
Boozman
Braun
Capito
Cassidy
Collins
Cornyn
Cotton
Cramer
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Enzi
Ernst
Fischer
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hawley
Hoeven
Hyde-Smith
Inhofe
Johnson
Jones
Kennedy
Lankford
Lee
Manchin
McConnell
McSally
Moran
Murkowski
Perdue
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Romney
Rounds
Rubio
Sasse
Scott (FL)
Scott (SC)
Sinema
Sullivan
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Wicker
Young
NAYS--39
Baldwin
Bennet
Blumenthal
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Coons
Cortez Masto
Durbin
Feinstein
Gillibrand
Harris
Hassan
Heinrich
Hirono
Kaine
King
Leahy
Markey
Menendez
Merkley
Murphy
Murray
Peters
Reed
Rosen
Schatz
Schumer
Shaheen
Smith
Stabenow
Tester
Udall
Van Hollen
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--9
Booker
Burr
Duckworth
Isakson
Klobuchar
Paul
Sanders
Shelby
Warren
The nomination was confirmed.
____________________