-9999
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Kramer in the Environment and Public Works Committee.
Since then, the EPA has devolved into a cesspool of fossil fuel corruption. As ranking member of EPW, in my constitutional oversight capacity, I have sent 12 oversight letters to EPA asking for documents and communications, as is my duty and my right--also several QFRs. As of July, when we went through the closing nominations exercise, I had received substantive responses to precisely zero of those 12 letters.
So prior to that August recess, we explored a deal to include Ms. Kramer in the noms package for pre-August recess action if we could get the substantive oversight responses we were due on 4--4--of the 12 topics. These were EPA's grants freeze, Administrator Zeldin's false statements about the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, EPA's plans to rescind the endangerment finding, and EPA undoing the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program at industry request.
I actually considered that to be a minor ask because it is the Administrator's constitutional duty to answer honestly to congressional oversight. Plus, he had made a promise to the chairman and to the committee at his confirmation to be responsive. Nevertheless, EPA was not willing to provide responses to these questions.
I will emphasize--this was EPA's decision, not Chair Capito's decision. She is blameless in this. It is EPA that is stonewalling congressional oversight.
So that is where we are. We actually just received QFR responses from Administrator Zeldin which persist in unresponsive and unprofessional nonanswers and no provision of documents. In fact, prevarication, insult, and invective have characterized the so-called responses.
I say to my colleagues and to the distinguished EPW chair, I don't think it is a big ask that executive branch Agencies take congressional oversight seriously.
I believe that if former EPA Administrator Regan had ever responded to Senator Capito as then-EPW ranking member in such a manner or, frankly, to any other member of the committee, then-Chairman Carper would have hit the roof.
To me, EPA is augmenting its corrupt favoritism for fossil fuel polluters with an unconstitutional rejection of congressional oversight--perhaps because there is, in fact, much to hide.
Again, honest Agency answers to a ranking member ought not to be a big ask. It ought to be the ordinary course of business. A reasonable and good-faith effort to comply should be expected.
We asked for answers to 4 of 12 letters. There is an easy answer here: that EPA follow the law and the Constitution and the Administrator's own promises. But failing that, since EPA won't, I regretfully must object.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I voted for Mr. McMaster in committee. Indeed, I pushed for his inclusion in a nominations package before the August recess. And I succeeded. He was included for confirmation at that time in that package.
I had asked DOT to release its new National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Program guidance, and to do so timely, as consideration for supporting Mr. McMaster's inclusion in that nominations package.
But then what happened? President Trump did not agree to the package. Indeed, he rejected it, adding for good measure an all-caps blast at the Democratic leader that he should ``GO TO HELL.''
And so Mr. McMaster did not get confirmed, even though he was in the package, because of President Trump losing his temper and objecting to the whole package.
DOT, nonetheless, has released the NEVI guidance, and it is very workable for States. For that, I am thankful, and I would like to support Mr. McMaster.
Unfortunately, last Friday, DOT announced, without warning, that it was terminating nearly $700 million in grant funding for 12 port projects, including an $11.25 million grant to the Port of Davisville, in my home State of Rhode Island. I got no prior call or explanation from DOT, just--boom. Friday. Friday.
The chairman has been kind enough to raise this matter with Secretary Duffy, and I would like to sort out how this new obstacle, thrown up Friday by DOT, will be resolved.
It is a bit soon after that unexpected punch in the face to want to resolve a nomination that is only still pending and not confirmed because of President Trump's objection. I would like to work with the chairman on a date to come to the floor in support of a unanimous consent for this individual. Indeed, I would be happy to do the same thing for Ms. Kramer, because I would like to get these issues resolved. But the port hit was an unexpected and, in my view, unjustified blow.
So for the moment, while I try to understand that with the chairman's gracious help, I must object.
And if I may, I would add that there was a third candidate involved in these conversations, Mr. Telle for an Army Corps position, who was also primed to be on that nominations list with my support. Senator Hagerty, whose chief of staff he had been, made the prudent decision to put him on to the voting list and get his nomination considered on the floor that evening and get him voted through before President Trump exploded the package.
So I just want to make a record of the fact that we were ready to support Mr. Telle as well, even before that vote was called to the floor.
With that, I yield back and renew my objection.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I would just like to offer one set of figures into the record in the hopes that it helps clarify things. My office tells me that Trump nominations that have been confirmed in the Senate as of September 3 number 135. President Biden's nominations confirmed as of that same date in his first months, September 3 of 2021, was 150, not counting judicial nominations. Biden has 141, and Trump has 130.
So the numbers are actually fairly close in terms of the outcome, although the processes have been different.
But, again, I want to reemphasize my desire to work with the chairman to get these cleared. I voted for all three, and I would like to support them as soon as we can get, what seems to me to be, fairly elementary problems resolved.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source