[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 5 (Thursday, January 9, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S112-S113]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Paul J. Ray

  Madam President, let me talk about Paul Ray. Paul Ray is a bright 
young man. He is the kind of person I think most of us would say: He 
ought to be in an administration. I don't care if it is a Democratic 
administration or a Republican administration. He is smart, well 
educated, and has good experience. He has been the nominee to head 
something called OIRA, the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, an entity that exists within OMB.
  I have met him. He has come to my office to talk with me. He is a 
very polite young man. He has been before our committee. I voted today 
against his confirmation. I will tell you why. The Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs used to be the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs. I served on it for 19 years. One of the things I 
love about that committee is that we have oversight over the whole 
Federal Government. Every committee we serve on, including committees 
the Presiding Officer serves on, all have an oversight role. A lot of 
that oversight deals with the administration as part of our checks and 
balances. We can only do that job so well if the administration allows 
us to do our job.
  During the confirmation process--as the Presiding Officer knows--
witnesses and nominees come before us from the administration. They 
have been vetted by the administration. They have gone through staff 
interviews. Then they come to a committee hearing. We also ask 
questions of the nominees that are relevant to the jobs they are going 
to do.

  Every now and then, you have a nominee for a particular position who 
is not forthcoming in his or her responses, so we do something called 
QFRs, which are questions for the record. They are designed to give the 
nominee another bite at the apple in responding to the questions that 
Democrats and Republicans have. A lot of times, the nominees are 
forthcoming, and that is good. The nominations then move forward, and 
they get confirmed.
  I have learned, if nominees are not forthcoming and are not 
responsive to the oversight questions we ask before they get confirmed, 
good luck after they get confirmed, for it doesn't get any better. I 
don't care whether you happen to be a Democrat or a Republican; you 
have to be concerned about the reluctance and the unwillingness of 
nominees to respond to reasonable questions regardless of who is in the 
White House and regardless of who is in the majority of this body.
  Let me say a word or two about OIRA. OIRA plays a central role in 
establishing regulatory and information collection policies across our 
entire Federal Government. OIRA oversees the rulemaking process from 
start to finish--from the reviewing of drafts of proposed and final 
rules, to managing the interagency review process, to ensuring agencies 
make rulemaking decisions based on sound cost-benefit analyses.
  The Administrator of OIRA is a critically important position because, 
at the end of the day, he or she is responsible for ensuring that rules 
promulgated by agencies benefit our society, protect our quality of 
life, protect our health, protect our safety, and protect our 
environment.
  Earlier today, I joined a number of my colleagues on the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works in a letter to Mr. Ray. We asked him to 
review concerns that have been raised recently by the EPA's Science 
Advisory Board about four specific rulemakings that are currently under 
review.
  The EPA's Science Advisory Board found serious concerns with the 
Trump administration's clean car standards rule, with the 
administration's proposed mercury and air toxics rule, with the 
administration's clean water rule rollbacks, as well as with a proposed 
EPA secret science rule, which will have the effect of limiting the 
science

[[Page S113]]

the EPA can actually use in rulemakings. The Science Advisory Board 
found serious shortcomings with how the EPA conducted these 
rulemakings. Either the cost-benefit analysis was deficient or 
insufficient, the Agency did not use the best available science, or the 
legal rationale that underpinned the rule was faulty.
  In case you are wondering who selects the members of this EPA Science 
Advisory Board, as it turns out, it is the President. In this case, all 
44 members of the EPA Science Advisory Board were nominated or were 
renominated under this administration, by this President. They said 
that there are serious problems with the four rulemakings that I just 
mentioned. They are not Obama's people. They were nominated by this 
President.
  Mr. Ray has served in top leadership positions at OIRA since June of 
2018. First, he was an Associate Administrator. Then, in March of last 
year, he was promoted to Acting Administrator. Mr. Ray has presided 
over or has been involved with dozens of controversial rulemaking 
decisions in the last year and a half at OIRA, including the 
rulemakings outlined in the letter that I mentioned we are sending him 
today.
  That is why, during the vetting process of his nomination, I, along 
with my colleagues on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 
Committee, asked for information about Mr. Ray's background and his 
work in the last year and a half at OIRA, which is within the OMB. 
Specifically, we asked him about his involvement in many controversial 
regulatory rulemaking decisions that have been put forward by the 
current administration. Unfortunately--sadly, really--Mr. Ray and the 
Office of Management and Budget have refused to provide the Senate with 
the information needed to vet Mr. Ray's nomination. As best as I can 
tell, they didn't even try.
  Unfortunately, throughout the vetting process, Mr. Ray apparently 
refused to answer the Senators' questions by asserting privilege or 
deferring to the OMB's General Counsel more frequently than any past 
OIRA nominee who has ever appeared before our committee. Something is 
wrong with that. I don't care if you are a Democrat or a Republican in 
this body or if the nominee comes from a Democratic President or a 
Republican President; something is wrong with that.
  In fact, Mr. Ray asserted privilege or deferred to counsel 19 times 
in his prehearing questionnaire responses alone. Is that a lot? That 
may well be more times than any other nominee in the history of this 
agency. Think about that. While it might be appropriate to withhold or 
redact particular content in some narrow circumstances, Mr. Ray and the 
OMB's Office of General Counsel have misapplied overly broad privileges 
to avoid providing Congress with critical information and documents 
related to his work at OIRA.
  Have you ever heard of checks and balances? There is a reason we have 
oversight. There is a reason we don't have Kings or Monarchs here who 
can do anything they want without a check or a balance. Sadly, this 
nomination process, at least for this nominee--and I think he is well 
qualified and bright--takes a thumb and sticks it in the eye of checks 
and balances.
  Unfortunately, should this body vote to confirm Mr. Ray, his general 
approach of nonresponsiveness to the committee's vetting process sets a 
concerning precedent, not just for him and not just for nominees of 
this agency, but for future nominees and subsequent oversight efforts 
to hold the executive branch accountable.
  It has been my privilege to serve on the Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs for 19 years now. We are an oversight 
committee that conducts oversight not just over the whole Federal 
Government but on matters that are important to our Nation outside of 
the government. One of our core duties is to ensure that nominees are 
forthcoming and provide the Senate with the information we need to do 
our jobs.
  Eventually, we are going to have an election. Who knows who is going 
to win the next time and who will be in the majority here in this body? 
Yet, under any administration, we should expect the nominees who appear 
before the Senate to be forthcoming and to provide us with the relevant 
information we need to adequately vet their nominations.
  For these reasons, I must reluctantly note my opposition to Mr. Ray's 
nomination for now and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Young). The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. I yield to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.