[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 106 (Wednesday, June 22, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3048-S3052]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
45th Anniversary of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning
to recognize and commemorate the 45th anniversary of the first oil
moving through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. We actually reached
that milepost on Monday so I am here to speak this morning about what
this 800-mile-long pipeline continues to mean for Alaska, our Nation,
and really the world itself.
TAPS, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, is truly a modern marvel. It is the
backbone of my home State's economy. It supports great jobs for Alaska.
It helps generate critical revenues for our State. It ensures that our
energy is transported safely, and it really is a vital component of
America's energy security. But I think it is kind of nice, as we
reflect on decades past, to appreciate some of the history behind the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline because, for a period of time, there was a
question of whether or not this extraordinary energy infrastructure
would be built at all.
After oil was discovered in Prudhoe Bay, there was vigorous debate as
to how we were going to move this resource, how we were going to
transport it. Some wanted to use trucks or tankers; others actually
thought that massive jets would be the way to go. There were some who
wanted to build an overland pipeline across Canada. That would have
been about a 3,200-mile line in length. But, thankfully, it was an all-
Alaska pipeline route that prevailed.
So when you look at the map of Alaska and where our pipeline sits
today, it truly does just bisect the entire State of Alaska. From
Prudhoe to Valdez at Tidewater is an 800-mile line. Thankfully, an all-
Alaska pipeline route was the one that ultimately prevailed over all of
the alternatives that were considered. Congress authorized it in 1973--
an overwhelmingly bipartisan basis of authorization.
There is an interesting side story--it is actually not a side story;
it is pretty pivotal--in terms of whether or not this Trans-Alaska
Pipeline actually came into being. But it was a tie-breaking vote cast
by Spiro Agnew that really helped to facilitate the line because it
effectively determined that there would be no further litigation about
the line moving forward.
The preconstruction process for TAPS lasted for about 6 years, mostly
concurrent with the final passage of its authorization act; and as part
of that, the Federal Task Force on Alaskan Oil Development--this is a
group that we should probably be bringing back--completed a six-volume
environmental impact statement, so a six-volume EIS.
And that EIS, along with Congress's decision to shield TAPS from
litigation--again, this tie-breaking vote that I have alluded to--
allowed the construction to begin. So it did.
Several companies joined together to form a joint venture, called
Alyeska, and they set forth to build and operate the line. And Alyeska
ultimately acquired 515 Federal permits, along with more than 832 from
the State of Alaska, in order to proceed.
Now, at that time, TAPS was the largest private construction project
of its kind. It had a pricetag of more than $8 billion. In October of
1975, more than 28,000 people were working to make it a reality, and
together they turned over 100,000 pieces of 40- to 60-foot pipe in a
[[Page S3049]]
48-inch diameter that runs from, again, Prudhoe to Valdez in the south
central part of our State.
I have had many opportunities to show visitors our Trans-Alaska
Pipeline. If you look at it from the air, it is just this silver
ribbon, again, that bisects the State. You look at it from the ground,
and, again, it is truly, truly an engineering marvel.
Now, I saw an old criticism that TAPS was an ``engineer's
nightmare.'' The occupant of the Chair here might be interested in this
given your background, but, in reality, it is a testament, truly, to
world-class engineering and the genius, the creativity, and the
pioneering spirit of all who worked on it.
TAPS crosses three mountain ranges, including Atigun Pass in the
Brooks Range that has an elevation of 4,739 feet. It reaches a grade of
55 degrees at Thompson Pass in the Chugach Range. It crosses more than
530 streams and rivers. It accommodates some 579 animal crossings. And
it operates at temperatures ranging from 95 degrees above zero to 80
degrees below zero, and that is not counting the windchill factor.
And when you are talking about Alaska, of course, you have got to
account for seismic activity. So TAPS' engineers also had to account
for that. You have got mountain ranges. You have got extreme weather.
You have got animals, wildlife that you have to accommodate. You have
the rivers, the streams, but you also have to accommodate seismic
hazard.
The pipeline crosses three fault lines, including the Denali Fault.
In that area, engineers built the pipeline on slider beams with Teflon
shoes. So if you look at these supports here, these vertical support
pillars here and the slider beams are on Teflon shoes that allow the
pipeline to move laterally up to 20 feet--up to 20 feet laterally--and
up to 5 feet vertically. So this pipeline can absorb the give-and-take
and the hard shake of a significant earthquake.
And it is pretty important that the engineers worked this into this
extraordinary infrastructure. We had a magnitude 7.9 earthquake that
struck in 2002 right on that Denali Fault. The pipeline handled it
well. It remained intact, and it did exactly what the engineers
designed it to do: It moved back and forth on these lateral supports.
It moved up and down, and it allowed that pipeline, that piece of steel
pipeline, to have the flex that it needed to avoid any--any--issues.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System was built in just over 3 years. This
was between 1974 and 1977. I was a young person growing up in Fairbanks
at the time, and that was a time and place of great energy and
intensity as we were involved in this extraordinary oil construction
boom. And the men and women who were working on the project at that
time had this saying: ``They just didn't know that it couldn't be
done.'' And they not only met their goal of first oil moving through
the pipeline by July 1, 1977; they beat it by 10 days.
And the rest, they say, is history. Over the past 45 years, TAPS has
not just been a pipeline, not just oil pipeline infrastructure; it has
become Alaska's economic lifeline. I say it is like the artery for our
State. It has helped us create jobs to the point where our oil and gas
industry either employs or supports about one-third of Alaska's
workforce. It has generated billions of dollars in revenues for our
State--for everything from roads and schools to essential services.
TAPS has allowed us to create and now grow our Permanent Fund. This
Permanent Fund has really turned our oil resources into an enduring
source of prosperity for Alaskans. We not only have a Permanent Fund,
but spun off from that Permanent Fund and the investment on those
earnings are dividends that are returned to each and every Alaskan in
this State. If you lived in Alaska from 1982, when they first started
the dividends, until today, you would have received nearly $45,000 in
annual dividends that go to offset the high cost of living in a high-
cost State like Alaska. This year, Alaskans are set to receive a pretty
hefty Permanent Fund dividend: more than $3,000 more.
So it has been an economic benefit, most certainly, to Alaskans. It
has also enabled us to keep our State tax burden low. We have no income
tax in the State. We have no statewide sales tax. We have the lowest
gas tax in the country.
As the economist Scott Goldsmith has noted, revenues from TAPS also
enable us to keep taxes on other industries like our tourism, our
fisheries--it allows us to keep those taxes lower than they might
otherwise be.
But really, from day one, TAPS has strengthened our energy security.
And when I talk about energy security, I am referring not just to the
security of those of us in Alaska but to our Nation's energy security.
It helped tide America over during the 1979 oil crisis. It has
insulated us from OPEC and OPEC Plus and lessened our dependence on
nations that do not share our interests, and it has dramatically
reduced the dollars that go overseas to purchase oil.
It has certainly provided reliable and affordable energy for tens of
millions of Americans up and down the west coast because it is the west
coast where Alaskan oil is primarily directed.
But it is hard to imagine Alaska without TAPS, without the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System. It is hard also to imagine the consequences
that America would have faced without the 18.4 billion barrels of oil
that it has now safely moved over these past 45 years. And I think it
is no exaggeration to say that while we built a pipeline, that pipeline
has helped us build our State.
And in the midst of all this--something that the folks at Alyeska
Pipeline are very, very proud of--Alyeska has accrued a remarkable
safety record. From 2017 through 2020, the company reported a total of
just 5.1 barrels of oil as spilled. Yet over that same time period,
from 2017 to 2020, more than 733 million barrels of oil have moved
through TAPS. So not 1 in every 1 million gallons, not 1 in every 10
million gallons, not even 1 in every 100 million gallons was spilled
during this time period. That is a pretty darn good record. And that is
something that Alyeska can be proud of, and I think it speaks to the
kind of company that it is.
And, at its core, the reason why TAPS has been successful are its
people. They focus on safety first. There are more than 700 people who
work directly for Alyeska on the North Slope, at the pump stations, at
its Anchorage control center, and in Valdez. And you are probably not
going to find a more dedicated group. They are just so committed to
their mission, and it certainly makes me proud to know that 95 percent
of those who work at Alyeska are Alaskans.
TAPS is an economic engine for our State. But as we are standing here
in 2022 celebrating its 45th anniversary, the fact of the matter is,
this pipeline faces a real challenge. TAPS' technical capacity is 2
million barrels per day. We have achieved that years ago. But right
now--right now--the pipeline is moving just a quarter of that. They are
moving about 500,000 barrels a day. So what that means is that the line
is about three-quarters empty, and that can create some difficult
operational challenges.
We have had many of the briefings about what it means when you have a
pipeline that isn't completely full. The throughput moves slower. And
when you have hot oil coming out of the ground in an arctic
environment, moving 800 miles through a cold piece of steel, if it
doesn't move quickly and it is allowed to cool down, it can build up
waxy buildup on the inside that needs to be scrubbed and cleaned. We
call it pigging. It is just an operational thing. Alyeska deals with
it, but it is something that is an issue.
When you have less than full throughput, it moves differently. So
when you are going up mountain ranges and down the other side, now what
happens as you see that pipeline, which is designed to flex, when you
don't have your full operational capacity? And Alyeska has been working
to work through some of these challenges, and they have been doing a
good job.
But in fairness, this is not Alyeska's fault here. If you want to
know why TAPS is a quarter full, you can probably look to some people
in this Chamber, some who have been serving in this Chamber before. You
can look down the street to Pennsylvania Avenue at the current
administration as well as some who preceded the Biden administration.
[[Page S3050]]
We have the resources--Alaska has the resources to fill TAPS up. What
we have lacked is access to our lands, access to our leases, and access
to the permits to help make this a reality. And this is despite various
Presidents telling Alaskans that, look, you are going to be able to
develop your resources. They say it, and the promises are broken over
and over and over again. And it continues to this day.
The Biden administration is breaking the law by refusing to carry out
the oil and gas program that Congress mandated for the non-wilderness
1002 Area. We did that in the 2017 law.
Millions of acres in our National Petroleum Reserve are being taken
off the table with this administration through, effectively,
administration whim. And with one of the best projects within the
Petroleum Reserve right now, we are dealing with some redtape here;
but, effectively, the excuse is that more studies need to be done.
These are studies that have been done already, and we are being told
you have to do them again.
With gas prices averaging more than $5 a gallon across the Nation, it
sure would be nice to fill up the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. It not only
gives us more product domestically; it would certainly help us in
Alaska. We would have more jobs in Alaska and more revenue to help us
improve the quality of life in every community in our State, help
offset the very high fuel costs in our State. We averaged $5 and above
a long time before many in the lower 48 here.
But we would also be bringing less foreign oil to the West Coast,
including California, where imports have risen in almost direct
proportion to our production decline. As you are seeing less oil coming
out of Alaska to the West Coast, particularly California, they are
getting it from somewhere, and they are bringing it in. They are
importing that. And whether it is from countries that don't like us and
don't really care about their environmental track record or their human
rights issues, we get it from there.
We would also have an alternative to Russia, which continues to sell
its energy and bring in billions of dollars a day to finance its bloody
war against Ukraine. And then across the Nation, you could anticipate
that prices would be lower at the pump, which would reduce the pain
that families and businesses are experiencing.
I know that there is not a dial on this extraordinary energy security
asset where we can just ramp it up, but this is an important discussion
to be having, again, in context of what value the oil resources in
Alaska can contribute to our country.
And when you have in place policies that say it is not important to
keep this thing full--even though in Alaska, you have the resources to
keep it full--when you say it is not important and you put in place
pressures and obstacles and barriers to increase production, you are
going to see that. You are going to see that impact, what happens in
this country to our supply. Right now, we are all reading about it. We
are all watching the news.
There is a lot that President Biden is saying that this is what we
are going to do to bring down your gas prices, but I will go on record
to suggest that a full TAPS would do a heck of a lot more to reduce gas
prices than many of the other suggestions out there like price gouging
probes and suspension of the Federal gas tax, the proposal to hand out
gas cards. These are temporary--almost momentary--blips that might make
somebody feel OK for a month or 2 because maybe I get a few cents more
off the price at the pump if we have a 3-month Federal gas tax holiday
like President Biden is suggesting. But, you know, it is not right to
put in place--I mean, you can call it a gimmick, but are you addressing
the fundamentals of supply and demand if you just say for a few months:
``Here, we are going to take the pressure off you so you won't be so
mad''? Well, people are going to continue to be so mad if it doesn't
help alleviate the problem, if it doesn't help address the pain that
American families are feeling.
It is pretty simple out here. We need supply. We need supply to keep
up with the rising demand and the falling output from around the world.
This is where we need to wake up because it is not as if we don't have
options. It is not as if we don't have the supply. Alaska has the
supply right in the vicinity of a world-class pipeline that has room
for an additional 1.5 million barrels per day.
It is just beyond me why anyone would contemplate oil from Iran or
Venezuela or other members of OPEC+ over a State like Alaska. It is
just beyond me; yet that is what we hear. That is what we hear from the
President. That is what we hear from the administration that somehow we
have to get this resource and it is going to have to come from
somewhere, so we are going to go asking. We are going to go asking
outside of our country. We are going to go to Iran, Venezuela.
The President is going to make a trip to Saudi Arabia, yet they are
not asking Alaska to do more. In fact, they are not only not asking,
they continue to put up impediments and barriers for us to do more, and
that just defies logic. It degrades the environment. It makes the world
a more dangerous place every time we look to other countries for
resources that we need, knowing full well that we have a better
environmental record here. We have the ability to make us less
vulnerable, less energy-insecure, and yet we are not taking advantage
of that.
There is a section on Alyeska's website titled ``Memories and
Mileposts,'' with historical information about TAPS, and I would
suggest that it is well worth visiting and recognizing what an
incredible asset this pipeline has been since first oil was moved
through it on June 20, 1977. Forty-five years is a good long time, but
even as we thank all who have made TAPS such a resounding success, I
would encourage all of you to maybe mark your calendars for June 20,
2027. That will be the 50th anniversary.
I would hope that we could all be honest and realistic about our
global energy needs in the meantime and ensure significantly greater
throughput is running through that pipeline when we reach the next
milepost. That would be good for Alaskans; that would be good for the
country. I think it would be good and important for the world. And we
know the men and women who operate TAPS at Alyeska and their
contractors will ensure that every last molecule moves safely through
it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hickenlooper). The Republican whip.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I just want to echo what was said by my
colleague from Alaska because what we are now hearing from the
administration are ideas that they think will help ease the pressure on
gas prices in this country, but they are all gimmicky. I mean, it is
all rebates--gas card rebates or doing away with the gas tax
temporarily until September, like that is going to do anything
meaningful long term to address this supply-demand crisis that the
Senator from Alaska just alluded to.
I have to say that this administration, from the time they came into
office, has demonstrated an open hostility to oil and gas production in
this country--energy production, more generally.
The Senator from Alaska was talking about the oil pipeline. We have
one in South Dakota--that was going to run through South Dakota--the
Keystone XL Pipeline, which was killed the first day in office by the
Biden administration and, again, sent signals to those who produce
energy in this country that we are not interested in what you have to
offer. We want to move in a different direction. And that different
direction, of course, is electric vehicles, which I am not against.
Everybody might want an electric vehicle. It is a free country. But the
fact of the matter is, we will be dependent upon liquid fuels in the
foreseeable future. Since that is the case, we ought to produce it
right here in Alaska. We have vast resources.
It is an issue, fundamentally, of supply and demand. As the Senator
of Alaska pointed out, you look at Alaska, now we are talking about
getting oil from Saudi Arabia, from Venezuela, from countries, other
places around the world--in some cases run by dictators--instead of
producing it right here in the United States of America. That is just
tragic. It is just tragic, and the American people are paying the price
for it.
Why? Because in places like Alaska where we have abundant resources,
they shut it down. They shut down
[[Page S3051]]
Federal lands. They started denying permits to drill, and they killed
the infrastructure that supports, in many cases, energy production in
this country.
A pipeline, for example, is not only the most efficient, but the
safest way to transport liquid fuels in this country. We need liquid
fuels. We know that. It is a fact, and we have the supply--abundant
supply is right here in the United States. All we have to do is simply
access that. Instead, we are talking about gimmicks like rebates, gas
card rebates or temporary suspension of the fuel tax in this country
which, by the way, would rob the Highway Trust Fund of the resources
that we need to build out the infrastructure in this country and to
maintain it.
There are just so many reasons and on so many levels why these are
bad ideas--so bad, in fact, that Speaker Pelosi in the House of
Representatives has previously referred to this kind of idea that the
administration is now proposing as a gimmick and something that isn't
going to provide long-term relief.
It is fundamentally an issue of supply and demand, and all we simply
have to do is turn it on. We have to get the energy producers in this
country off the sidelines, back into the game, producing oil and gas in
America in a way that will meet Americans' daily needs when they fill
up their cars and trucks with gasoline at the pump, which right now
they are being punished unnecessarily by an economy where we have
constantly rising gas prices. The average price is around $5
nationwide, literally a doubling of the gas price since this President
took office. There is a direct correlation--direct correlation--connect
the dots--to policy decisions this administration has made, which they
are now realizing and trying to come up with these gimmicky ideas to
try to deal with an issue that fundamentally could be fixed simply by
sending the right signals and encouraging and incentivizing the type of
energy production in this country that we ought to be encouraging.
And the energy producers in this country are up to it. They will meet
the demand if we simply give them the opportunity. That is what needs
to change. That is what this administration needs to be focused on, not
on shutting down gas and oil and energy production here in the United
States.
Pro-Life Movement
Mr. President, the Dobbs case will be decided by the Supreme Court in
a matter of days now. I pray that it will be decided in favor of life
and that Roe v. Wade, a case that even pro-abortion constitutional
scholars criticized, will be overturned.
But however Dobbs is decided, the work of the pro-life movement will
continue. That work, of course, includes advocacy--attempts to change
laws that ensure that human rights of unborn human beings are
protected.
But perhaps most of all, it includes the daily work of providing help
to moms in need. Helping moms and their babies are central to the pro-
life movement. Pregnancy resource centers and other pro-life
organizations provide a variety of resources to help women in
challenging circumstances. They provide supplies for moms and their
babies. They offer prenatal and parenting classes. They assist moms
with housing. They help them connect with State and local resources,
and they provide friendship and support and a listening ear to mom
going through a difficult time.
They provide agency referrals for mothers who choose to make an
adoption plan for their babies. They provide places for moms and their
babies to live while they complete their education or get back on their
feet.
During the current formula crisis, pregnancy resource centers have
helped moms struggling to find what they need to feed their babies by
providing them with free formula.
You would think that helping out moms would be pretty
uncontroversial. You would think that everyone, including individuals
who are pro-abortion, could get behind helping a struggling mom find
housing or access to prenatal care. But apparently the pro-abortion
movement finds providing material help to moms in need and letting them
know they have alternatives to abortion somehow to be pretty
threatening.
Pregnancy resource centers have frequently been a target of pro-
abortion politicians in the pro-abortion movement, which have sought to
undermine their work. But things have gotten very serious in recent
weeks. Since a draft of a possible opinion in the Dobbs case was leaked
in May, pro-abortion extremists have conducted a campaign of vandalism
and violence against pregnancy resource centers and churches. Just a
few blocks away from here, one pregnancy resource center was egged and
graffitied and had its door covered in red paint. A number of others
have faced similar vandalism, and multiple pregnancy resource centers
have been the victim of arson.
A group claiming responsibility for a number of the attacks, Jane's
Revenge, released a chilling letter last week in which it declared
``open season'' on pregnancy centers and stated:
We promised to take increasingly drastic measures against
oppressive infrastructures. Rest assured that we will, and
those measures may not come in the form of something so
easily cleaned up as fire and graffiti.
Well, perhaps it is not entirely shocking that some members of the
extreme abortion movement have responded to the possibility of Roe
being overturned with vandalism, arson, and threats of further attacks.
This wave of violence is deeply troubling, and these attacks need to
be taken seriously. I hope Attorney General Garland is developing a
strategy to confront this wave of vandalism and violence and to prevent
future and more serious attacks.
Earlier this month, I joined a number of my Republican colleagues in
sending a letter to the Attorney General asking about his plans for
dealing with these attacks and preventing future ones. I am
disappointed that we have yet to receive a reply to our letter. And the
President--not merely his spokesperson but the President himself--
should be out there strongly condemning these attacks and letting
everyone know that violent responses to the Dobbs decision will not be
tolerated.
After one pregnancy resource center was vandalized, its director
said:
We are not going to let intimidation change what we are
doing. It failed. It was pretty unanimous from the volunteers
and staff here that this is not going to change how we will
do business here one bit at all.
I know that attitude is reflected at other pregnancy resource
centers, and I know that, despite threats of violence, the work of
helping moms and their babies will continue.
The work of the pro-life movement represents the best of our American
tradition: providing a voice to the voiceless, standing up for the
human rights of those who have been denied them, and providing a
helping hand to neighbors in need. I am grateful to all the pro-life
Americans standing up for the human rights of unborn human beings and
helping moms and their babies get the resources they need, and win or
lose at the Supreme Court, I know that work will continue.
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.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Nomination of Mary T. Boyle
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, later this afternoon, we are going to
vote on Mary Boyle to be a Consumer Product Safety Commissioner. This
organization, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, works on the
frontlines to protect consumers from dangerous and defective products,
and Ms. Boyle's confirmation will give the Commission a full complement
of Commissioners to complete its important work.
The Consumer Product Safety Commission is responsible for regulating
the safety of more than 15,000 everyday products and helps keep
hazardous products out of our homes and away from our families. The
Agency is responsible for investigating hazards, effectuating product
recalls, issuing and enforcing product safety standards, and informing
consumers and manufacturers about potential dangers and how to avoid
them. The CPSC's work literally saves lives and prevents injuries.
We know that Ms. Boyle is well qualified for this position and that
she will make consumers a top priority and their safety a top priority.
Now is an important time for the Consumer Product Safety Commission
[[Page S3052]]
to be well equipped to fight for these consumer safety issues. We need
it to remain a strong force in keeping unsafe and defective products,
including children's toys, infant rockers, household appliances, and
other issues in the development space, like elevators and space
heaters, out of the market.
When it comes to recalls, for example, this year the Consumer Product
Safety Commission and three residential elevator manufacturers
announced the recall of 70,000 residential elevators that posed a
serious risk of injury and, tragically, death to small children. I am
encouraged to see that the Consumer Product Safety Commission is taking
action on this heartbreaking issue. There is more to be done, and we
need a Commission that will follow through.
The Commission is also responsible for investigating tragedies, such
as home fires that might have been caused by defective products. In
fact, the Consumer Product Safety Commission was quickly on the scene
in the Bronx earlier this year when a fire from a space heater caused
the death of 17 people, including 8 children. When I sent a letter to
the Consumer Product Safety Commission asking them to look further into
this issue, they acted quickly and knew that we had to investigate.
While these investigations are still ongoing, we need assurances that
if a defective product is found to be the cause, that the Consumer
Product Safety Commission is going to be fully equipped to take action.
I also want to mention with respect to the Consumer Product Safety
Commission's rulemaking authority that the Commerce Committee recently
passed the STURDY Act, a bill that would speed up the Consumer Product
Safety Commission's rulemaking process to deal with furniture tipovers.
Unfortunately, many furniture items are designed in such a way that
they can tip if a child grabs or climbs upon them, with the potential
of very tragic consequences. The Consumer Product Safety Commission has
been undertaking a rulemaking to ban unsafe furniture items by imposing
strict tipover testing requirements. I hope we will see a safety
standard for this very soon.
Over the course of more than a decade at the Commission, Ms. Boyle
has worked on these issues in senior positions across the Consumer
Product Safety Commission, including as General Counsel and Deputy
General Counsel before assuming her current role as Executive Director.
As the Consumer Product Safety Commission's General Counsel, Ms.
Boyle served the Agency's chief legal officer--providing legal, policy,
and strategic advice on a multitude of regulatory, statutory, fiscal,
litigation, and enforcement issues--and examined proposed product
safety rules and standards. So I think she is well qualified for this
job. She worked with the Department of Justice on Federal court
litigation in which the Commission was involved.
In her current role as Executive Director, she is the chief operating
officer of the Agency, ensuring that it meets program and operational
and administrative functions. She is more than well-versed in the
Agency's processes and eminently qualified to hit the ground running as
a Commissioner.
Over 90 different organizations have written to my office in support
of her nomination, including the AFL-CIO, the Consumer Federation of
America, the National Consumers League, Kids in Danger, and many, many
more organizations.
I want to say to all my colleagues, I hope you will vote to confirm
Ms. Boyle to ensure that the Consumer Product Safety Commission can
move forward so that these important issues can be addressed and
Americans can find safer products in their homes.
I look forward to working with Ms. Boyle at a critical time for the
Agency in making sure that these products are safe and that Americans
are protected from dangerous and defective products.
Unanimous Consent Agreement--Executive Calendar
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15
today, the Senate vote on the motion to discharge the Freeman
nomination; further, that immediately following that vote, the Senate
vote on confirmation of the Boyle nomination as under the previous
order; and that if the nomination is confirmed, the motion to
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate and the President be immediately notified
of the Senate's action.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________