Executive Session

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I think we are running a few minutes behind. We have had a real crush of business here in the last hour. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, every Senator knows the House is now in the middle of an impeachment inquiry. Here in this Chamber, the Senate has been considering the nomination of Dan Brouillette to be Energy Secretary, replacing Rick Perry.

In my view, questions about Secretary Perry's conduct in Ukraine--and what Mr. Brouillette may know about that conduct--tie this nomination to the impeachment inquiry in an important way. I have come to believe there are several significant unanswered questions about Secretary Perry's role in changing the board of a state-owned energy company called Naftogaz.

What Secretary Perry, his campaign donors, and certain crooked associates of Rudy Giuliani stood to gain from those changes is something the Senate ought to be digging into. We have been hearing about Secretary Perry's role in Donald Trump's scheme with respect to withholding a meeting and military aid until Ukrainian President Zelensky agreed to interfere in the 2020 elections in the United States.

The investigations seem to be piling up. Every time a new piece of information comes to light, it raises yet more and more questions about schemes that sure look, based on the facts, to be corrupt. Somehow, Secretary Perry seems to be making his way out the door without facing much, if any, scrutiny. Now the Senate is trying to fast-track his replacement.

I will put it simply: Enough, enough. It is time for the Senate to get some answers instead of just saying everything is A-OK at the Energy Department.

I am going to take just a few minutes to explain what this is all about. Mr. Perry is famously one of the ``three amigos'' who took control of U.S. ties with Ukraine under the direction of the President and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Secretary Perry attended President Zelensky's inauguration in May. They held a private meeting. It has been reported that Secretary Perry pushed President Zelensky to fire members of the board of Naftogaz--a Ukrainian energy giant--and replace them with Secretary Perry's own political donors.

At a second meeting with Ukrainian government and energy sector officials, Secretary Perry reportedly said the entire board ought to be replaced. The Associated Press reported that one person who attended the meeting said that ``he was floored by the American requests because the person had always viewed the U.S. government `as having a higher ethical standard.' ''

The changes Secretary Perry was seeking lined up with changes sought by two shady characters named Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman, associates of Rudy Giuliani's. They also wanted different leadership at Naftogaz.

I am going to read now from an Associated Press report.

As Rudy Giuliani was pushing Ukrainian officials last spring to investigate one of Donald Trump's main political rivals, a group of individuals with ties to the president and his personal lawyer were also active in the former Soviet republic. Their aims were profit, not politics.

This circle of businessmen and Republican donors touted connections to Giuliani and Trump while trying to install new management at the top of Ukraine's massive state gas company. Their plan was to then steer lucrative contracts to companies controlled by Trump allies, according to two people with knowledge of their plans.

Federal prosecutors are now investigating Rudy Giuliani's role. A Naftogaz official is reportedly cooperating in the investigation, and some of Rick Perry's political donors did get a lucrative oil and gas deal in Ukraine after Perry began pressuring the Ukrainian President for changes.

Perry admits he was in contact with Giuliani about Ukraine. It was also revealed in impeachment testimony that Perry was seemingly made aware in July of the Trump scheme where it seemed like everybody was involved in Ukraine.

To get it straight, I think this is the bottom line: Secretary Perry has somehow managed to stay on the fringes of this whole scheme, but it sure looks to me like he was right at the heart of serious ethical compromises. President Trump has claimed he made the call to Ukraine's President that prompted the whistleblower's complaint at Perry's request. Everywhere you look in the Ukraine scandal, it looks like there is crooked behavior all over.

I have a hard time believing that Secretary Perry booked his own flight for these meetings, sauntered out the back door of the Energy Department, and freelanced his own shady Ukraine policy without anybody knowing about it.

That brings me back to the Brouillette nomination. Dan Brouillette is currently the Deputy Energy Secretary. He is the No. 2 person at the Department. He is the Deputy to the ``amigo.''

At his confirmation hearing, sitting on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which I at one time chaired, I thought it was important to ask Mr. Brouillette some basic questions about what I have outlined here. What I wanted to know wasn't real complicated: Whom did Secretary Perry meet with regarding Ukraine and Naftogaz? He was a powerful guy, and he wielded major influence over a nation that is dependent on aid from the United States as it resists aggression by Russia. Who else was in the loop with Secretary Perry?

Deputy Secretary Brouillette acknowledged in my questions only that there were meetings but provided no further details about who took part in them. In followup written questions, again, he just wasn't forthcoming. He wouldn't provide any answers.

I am sending a letter to Deputy Secretary Brouillette to give him yet another chance to answer basic questions: To whom was Mr. Brouillette referring when he acknowledged Perry held meetings on seeking changes at Naftogaz; when and where did those meetings take place; to whom outside the Department did Secretary Perry speak regarding changes in Naftogaz and the substance of those communications; and then, whether Department staff were involved in meetings at which changes to Naftogaz leadership came up, who the staff were, and what materials were produced.

I will make it clear, I find it implausible the Secretary of Energy was unstaffed on all this. I would think, for an important meeting like this, Secretary Perry would have individuals from the Department of Energy who were involved in these discussions that Mr. Brouillette has now acknowledged took place, but we can't get any names. We can't get any answers at all.

I think it is seriously an error for the Senate to just rush to this nomination without getting answers to the questions I have outlined. Indictments are flying. Investigations reveal major wrongdoing. Every stone that gets overturned in this process reveals a lot more generally about a rotten scheme. It just seems to me that Secretary Perry is a significant figure in this scandal, and he is just trying to get out of dodge.

To me, this ought to be an opportunity for this body, the U.S. Senate, to stand up and demand accountability from the Trump administration and all of those in the administration who can provide information that, I think, provides a modest amount of information--a modest amount of information--about discussions that could very well be relevant to this whole Ukraine scheme.

Mr. Giuliani already had associates indicted. Just yesterday, there were differences of opinion in the testimony about what Mr. Perry's involvement was all about. Practically every day there are unanswered questions about this matter. Because I believe the Senate deserves to have answers to the questions I have raised, because I think this is just accountability 101 to have this information, I will be voting no today on cloture. My understanding is that no matter how the Senate is recorded today, there will be some opportunity over the holiday break for Senators, staff, and those who are doing investigative work on this to get more details. I certainly think that without the question I have been asking and the modest amount of information they would disclose-- information, frankly, I think Secretary Perry, the Energy Department, and the Trump administration could produce quite quickly if they didn't want to spend the time stonewalling--I think given that, it is not responsible to advance this nomination through an affirmative cloture vote today, so I will be voting no. My hope is that over the next week or so, we can start to get some answers to these basic questions.

I will tell you, I have just gone through five townhall meetings at home in rural and urban areas. Everybody I represent at home thinks there ought to be more accountability in Washington, DC, rather than less.

Without answers to the questions I have outlined today, there is no question that with respect to accountability, the Senate, by voting cloture today, would be settling for less.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source