Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mr. INHOFE. As we all recognize, the preemption section of this bill was the most contentious issue of the negotiations as well as the most important linchpin in the final deal. The compromise includes several notable provisions. First, it is clear that when a chemical has undergone a risk evaluation and determined to pose no unreasonable risk, any state chemical management action to restrict or regulate the substance is preempted. This outcome furthers Congress's legislative objective of achieving uniform, risk-based chemical management nationally in a manner that supports robust national commerce. Federal determinations reached after the risk evaluation process that a chemical presents no significant risk in a particular use should be viewed as determinative and not subject to different interpretations on a state-by-state or locality-by-locality basis. Further, under the new legislation, EPA will make decisions based on conditions of use, and must consider various conditions of use, so there could be circumstances where EPA determines that a chemical does not present an unreasonable risk in certain uses, but does in others. Preemption for no significant risk determinations would apply as these determinations are made on a use-by-use basis. Second, to promote the engagement of all stakeholders in the risk evaluation process--including State governments--thee compromise creates a temporary preemption period for identified high priority chemicals moving through EPA's risk evaluation process. The period only runs from the time EPA defines the scope of the evaluation to the time that EPA finishes the evaluation, or the agency deadline runs out. It does not apply to the first 10 TSCA Work Plan chemicals the EPA reviews, and it does not apply to manufacturer-requested risk evaluations. It does apply to any and all other chemical substances EPA choses to review through a risk evaluation. States with compelling circumstances can request and be granted a vysaiver by EPA. These waiver and scope limitations ensure that the piause has its intended effect--to ensure that there is one, comprehensive, nationally-led risk evaluation occurring at a time, allowing EPA and affected manufacturers to focus on and complete the work on a timely basis, and to ensure a uniform and consistent federal approach to risk evaluation and risk management. Senator Vitter, despite the fact that this law regulates products in commerce and Congress has the authority and Constitutional duty to protect interstate commerce, efforts were made to give States a role in this process, and even to get waivers from preemption where State actions are adequately justified. It should be noted that nothing precludes State action on chemical substances that are not the subject of an EPA risk evaluation or decision. There is also nothing in the compromise that precludes states from offering opinions, advice, or comment during the risk evaluation process. The risk evaluation process anticipates numerous opportunities for public comment. It is our hope that States with an interest in a particular chemical substance will in fact bring forward relevant scientific information on chemical hazards, uses and exposures to inform an effective federal decision. This will ensure that EPA is making the most informed decisions for the citizens of the United States as a whole, rather than one State affording protection to only a fraction of the country. Senator Vitter, before we conclude our discussion on preemption, I would to ask you to help clarify the intent of the preemption provision as it relates to actions taken prior to enactment of the Frank Lautenberg bill.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate your clarification on the intent of an important aspect of preemption under this act and also wanted to follow up with a question on judicial review. Specifically, what changes to TSCA's judicial review provisions have been made in the compromise?

Mr. INHOFE. The Senate Report language states that section 9 of TSCA provides EPA with discretionary authority to address unreasonable risks of chemical substances and mixtures under other environmental laws. ``For example, if the Administrator finds that disposal of a chemical substance may pose risks that could be prevented or reduced under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Administrator should ensure that the relevant office of the EPA receives that information.'' Likewise, the House Report on section 9 of TSCA states: ``For example, if the Administrator determines that a risk to health or the environment associated with disposal of a chemical substance could be eliminated or reduced to a sufficient extent under the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Administrator should use those authorities to protect against the risk.'' This act states in new section 9(a)(5) of TSCA that the Administrator shall not be relieved of any obligation to take appropriate action to address risks from a chemical substance under sections 6(a) and 7, including risks posed by disposal of the chemical substance or mixture. Consistent with the Senate and House reports, this provision means that the Administrator should use authorities under the other laws such as the Solid Waste Disposal Act to prevent or reduce the risks associated with disposal of a chemical substance or mixture. Senator Vitter, I know another section that is very important to you is the language around sound science and we all know you have worked to ensure that this bill fixes the scientific concerns of the National Academy of Science and other scientific bodies who have raised concerns with the way EPA has reviewed chemicals in the past. Could you please discuss the Congressional intent of the bills science provisions?

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you for clarifying the Congressional intent of the important science provisions in this bill. I wanted to ask you one final question that is another key element to reforming this outdated law. It should be clear to all that H.R. 2576 attempts to ensure that the Environmental Protection Agency takes the possible exposures to sensitive subpopulations into account when prioritizing, assessing and regulating high priority chemical substances. The goal, of course, is to ensure that factors that may influence exposures or risk are considered as the Agency assesses and determines the safety of chemical substances. A concern, however, could be that the language regarding sensitive subpopulations may be read by some to promote the concept of ``low dose linearity'' or ``no threshold'' for many chemicals, including substances that are not carcinogens. This concept has not been firmly established in the scientific community. Does H.R. 2576 address this concern?

Mr. INHOFE. I will not use 7\1/2\ minutes, but I will be using that after the vote. I do want to include one more person who has not been thanked, and that is Senator McCain. Right now we are in the middle of the must-pass bill every year, the Defense authorization bill. He was kind enough to allow us to work this in during his very busy schedule on this bill, which we are trying to get through this week. So I do thank him very much. It is important, even though we thank the same people over and over again. When it gets to Dimitri, I am going to pronounce his name right, and I will be thanking him and several others. With that, I yield our time back. I see the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. INHOFE. Of course.

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Massachusetts very much. Mr. President, I yield back our time and ask for the vote.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me go through the list. As I made the statement, it is important that people recognize how long staff works around here. Quite frankly, I have often said, when they come around for a report from our committee--the Environment and Public Works Committee, the committee that has the largest jurisdiction in the entire U.S. Senate--we are the committee that gets things done. If we look at the variety of philosophies that are present praising this work that is being done, we had the very most conservative to the very most progressive of Members, and it is not just this bill. We did the highway reauthorization bill, something that had to wait for about 8 years to get done, the largest one since 1998. We had the WRDA bill, which we anticipate is going to be a reality. It has come out of our committee. This committee also has jurisdiction over the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and then all of the public works. As my ranking member, Senator Boxer, has said several times during this process, we get things done. Now, we do disagree on a lot of the issues on the environment. As I say to my good friends on the other side of the aisle, you have every right to be wrong, but we get things done, and I appreciate that very much. Senator McCain, I already thanked you for yielding to us to allow us to pass one of the most significant bills which we just passed by voice vote.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Let me just quickly say--because I do want to make sure we get on the record on this, Senators Vitter and Udall, certainly the Senator from New Mexico. The way we have worked together is remarkable. The Senator has brought in Bonnie to do the work she has done. I know she wanted to be here as we are voting on this bill, but it got down to do we want to get it done tonight or do we want to take a chance for later. Dimitri Karakitsos, all these were working. Jonathan Black with Senator Udall's office has been great, and Andrew Wallace so ably represented Senator Udall in those negotiations. I thank Michal Freedhoff in Senator Markey's office for the hours of work he poured into this bill. I also thank Adrian Deveny with Senator Merkley for his work in these negotiations and Adam Zipkin representing Senator Booker. A special thanks goes to Bill Ghent and Emily Spain with Senator Carper. Senator Carper has not been mentioned much tonight, but he has been very active in getting this done. Emily Enderle with Senator Whitehouse. Senators Carper, Whitehouse, Merkley, and Booker have been partners in getting this completed. Finally, I appreciate, as I have said many times before, Senator Boxer and her team, Bettina Poirier and Jason Albritton, for working with us in support of this bill. We have done not just this bill but a lot of bills in the committee, and these same characters keep coming up. So it is the staff who has driven this thing. I have to say, my chief of staff, the one most prominent on the committee, obviously did so much of the work on this. So, Ryan Jackson, you did a great job. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Frank and I used to talk about that. I have 20 kids and grandkids. We used to compete with each other in exchanging pictures, one of the many things that we had in common. I look forward to visiting. I look forward to making this a major accomplishment. It is so important to do it today because we have a recess coming up, the House has a recess coming up, and there are a lot of people and companies out there who are making decisions now as to what they are going to do, all predicated on their certainty that this bill is going to pass. So we will join together and just do the best we can to make that happen for the sake of a lot of jobs around the country.

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator yield? Before he leaves the floor, I want to get in on this because the Senator said a lot of really great things. I don't recall at any time someone from the private sector like the Lautenbergs coming in and participating the way that she has. I really do appreciate it. I know she is around here somewhere. But let me say this to the Senator: You came in when we lost Frank and where we all were at that time. I have to say publicly that you are the guy who jumped in there and filled the vacuum that was created by his loss. We could not have done it. When I stop and think about all the people who are supporting this, in the years I have been here--I am talking about 22 years here in the Senate--I have never seen this happen before, where we have so much unanimity, not even on the highway bills or things we have done together. I want to make sure everyone knows that you are very much the reason where we are today. I hope we can finish this up today and make everyone happy. I was talking to a group yesterday. In talking about this, we haven't really used the issue of jobs as we should have. They were talking about how many--I will not name the companies--that are right now employing in places such as China, India, and other places because of the uncertainty of the definitions that we have in this country. This completely solves that. I don't think anyone has ever put pencil to how many jobs can be immediately recreated in this country, along with other things, that will be coming in the future. This could end up being the greatest jobs bill, not of the year, but of the decade. Does the Senator agree with that?

Mr. INHOFE. I appreciate that--and personalities also. We had the far left and the far right. Everybody realized that this is something we all can agree on. Do I understand from the Senator that Bonnie Lautenberg is here today?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, first, let me thank the Senator from Louisiana. It has been a long fight for a long time. Of course, I understand that Bonnie Lautenberg--who has been a very significant part of the discussion as we have gone along--is here today, and she is living this historic day with us. I say ``historic day'' because the Senate can take the final steps necessary to send the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act to be signed into law. That can happen today. Today the Senate can pass a bill with a tremendous amount of support. I think the Senator from Louisiana articulated it very well. We had individuals from the far right and the far left all in agreement. I would add to that that we have an impressive list of groups that are supporting this: the Obama administration, American Chemistry Council, Environmental Defense Fund, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Humane Society, National Association of Manufacturers, March of Dimes, American Petroleum Institute, National Wildlife Federation, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Americans for Tax Reform, National Association of Chemical Distributors, and American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturing. Everybody. We are talking about labor unions and manufacturers. It is very rare. I agree with the Senator from Louisiana. I don't recall, in my experience here, ever having the array of support from organizations and people that we have with this. I have been working along with that group since 2012, and then Senator Lautenberg approached me and asked for my help. I think that was the time Republicans became a majority-- no, we were still a minority at that time. But he wanted to have everyone involved in this from the different parties and different philosophical realms, and that is exactly what happened. I know my friend Bonnie Lautenberg, as I mentioned, is here today. I have never seen a bill in process that has garnered the support of someone like, in this case, the widow of Frank Lautenberg. She is there all the time, making sure this proper tribute we are going to make today becomes reality. I think the key provisions have been covered by my friend from Louisiana. Let me join him in thanking all our friends from the left and friends from the right for joining together on something that is really good for America. One thing that hasn't been talked about very much is the number of jobs. I talked to a large group of manufacturers yesterday, and they said we never talk about jobs. There are jobs overseas today because of the uncertainty here in terms of how we are treating chemicals in this country. They can't put forth the money and resources necessary unless they know there is certainty that they are going to be able to use whatever chemicals they have to use to produce whatever they are producing. Where are they now? They are in China, India, Mexico--places where they don't have to deal with this problem. So that is a major thing that is happening. Unanimous Consent Request--H.R. 2576 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, the Chair lay before the Senate the message to accompany H.R. 2576; further, that the majority leader or his designee be recognized to make a motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment; that there be no other motions in order and there be up to 3 hours of debate equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on the motion; finally, that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate vote on the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I regret that the Senator from Kentucky has left the Chamber because the two things he mentioned were the criminal provisions and the preemption. The criminal provisions and the preemption have been with us for 6 months--not for 2 days, not for 3 days, but for 6 months. That is exactly what we voted on in December. You can't ask for more time than that to consider the provisions of a bill. The other thing is that we are all supporting the two components of the bill--that is, the criminal provisions and the preemption. Again, they have been here for 6 months. I ask that we have a chance to reconsider. We know this is going to pass. We know that when we get back, it will pass. It will pass because we have to go through all the procedures of a cloture vote on the motion to proceed and all that. So we know it is going to pass. That is not the issue. It is just that if we could do it now instead of 2 weeks from now. There are people making decisions today as to what they are going to be doing and what products they are going to be manufacturing and where they are going to do it. And to put that off for 2 more weeks after we have been working on this for 6 months is not a fair way to conduct business. I hope that later on today we will have an opportunity to get this done. There is no reason not to do it. Everyone is for it. Every group I mentioned is for it. Every Democrat, Republican, liberal, conservative is all for it. This is our opportunity to get it done. There is still time today to do that. I hope that between now and 1:45, which is the scheduled time for our vote, that will be a reality. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, since Friday, my State and DC offices have been flooded with calls from concerned constituents regarding President Obama's latest unilateral action directing public schools and colleges to allow transgender kids into the bathrooms and locker rooms of their choice. In Oklahoma, we understand what this is all about. This is all about a liberal agenda being crammed down the neck of Oklahoma and the rest of the country. On Sunday, I went to a church service near the Grand Lake area in Northeastern Oklahoma, where the nearest community has about 250 people. The pastor, whose name is Mark, said, ``If ever there were a Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego moment in America, it is now.'' They understand that there is a real battle going on in Washington for our values. These values should be decided at the local level by the parents and teachers who truly understand what needs to take place to protect all kids. He went on to say that ``we have to embolden our school board members [and other politicians] with our support.'' I agree. This is why I put forth a bill last year, which passed last year, to empower local school authorities to make these kinds of decisions. What the President is doing is unilaterally redefining title IX of the education law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. With the new guidance he has issued, Obama is aiming to prohibit anything that could be construed as discrimination against ``gender identity, including discrimination based on a student's transgender status.'' Ultimately, the President is demanding, under threat of losing significant public assistance--in my State of Oklahoma, this amounts to about $450 million--if States and school districts don't comply. In other words, it is blackmail: You comply or you lose something you are entitled to. By rewriting the law, President Obama has decided, without any input from Congress, that local schools must accommodate a very small segment of the population in a very specific way by allowing them to use the bathroom of their choice. By blackmailing our schools with funding that goes to low-income and special needs kids--money which schools are already entitled to receive--the Obama administration is writing its own laws to punish those who disagree. As the pastor said this weekend, ``We should not sell out the innocence and the safety of our children'' as a condition for receiving Federal money that helps those who need it the most. In fact, he went on to say: We just will not accept it. We don't need to accept it. It is not worth the price we would pay. This misguided policy is directed at the comfort of a microminority at the expense of the comfort, privacy, and safety of the majority of students who do not want to expose themselves or be exposed to another student of a different sex. As Oklahoma's attorney general, Scott Pruitt, has noted, the administration's letter ``definitely changes the law in that it takes the unprecedented step of redefining `sex' to mean 'gender identity.' '' Furthermore, he states that the President's actions ``are unlawful'' and that they represent the ``most egregious administrative overreach to date'' and that Oklahoma ``will vigorously defend the State's interests.'' I fully support Oklahoma and other States that are vowing to fight this undemocratic edict from a politician who is no longer accountable to the voters. Oklahoma's parents, schools, and State and local boards are best equipped to deal with the issues they face in the classroom and on school grounds and should not be dictated to from Washington. Our Nation's schools should not be ground zero for social experiments from the liberal agenda, and this is exactly what is happening now, but it doesn't take an Attorney General or a U.S. Senator to come to these conclusions. I thank God that basic morality is ringing out from the pews, not just in Northeastern Oklahoma but throughout America. You are doing the Lord's work, Mark. Keep it up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time spent in a quorum call before 12:30 p.m. today be equally divided.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized as in morning business for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to sign the United States on to the Paris climate agreement on April 22-- that is Earth Day--2 days from now, there are lessons from past international climate agreements, namely the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, that we would be remiss to ignore. Let's keep in mind that the meeting they had was the 21st annual meeting. This is the big United Nations meeting, when everyone tries to get 196 countries to come in and have mandatory emissions reductions. It hasn't worked in 21 years, and it will not work this year either. The situation they are facing now is kind of embarrassing. Let's just call the Paris Agreement what it is. It is a political stunt for the President to do what President Clinton was going to do in the Kyoto Protocol back in 1997. To recap, in 1997, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which set forth binding targets and timetables for greenhouse gas emission reductions for developed countries such as the United States and the European Union. Meanwhile, developing countries such as China, India, and Brazil got a free pass. In fact, the Kyoto Protocol exempted 80 percent of the world from greenhouse gas emission reductions. That was back in 1997. I could talk extensively about how it was known then that without developing countries, Kyoto would produce no meaningful impact on global climate change or reductions. What is most important in advance of the Paris Agreement signing, which is 2 days from now, is holding the Obama administration accountable to the lessons learned from the fallout of Kyoto. Let's not forget that the Kyoto Protocol--which was a legally binding treaty, as opposed to the Paris treaty, which is all voluntary--was signed by the Clinton administration in late 1998 but was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. This was because the Senate had already voted, and they knew they weren't going to ratify it. About that time in 1997, we had the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which warned that if the United States came back from Kyoto with a signed product that economically harmed the United States or exempted developed countries from participating, we would not ratify it. The resolution passed 95 to 0 in this Chamber. They knew when they came back that it wasn't going to be signed. With a vote of 95 to 0, not one Senator would have voted to ratify. Ultimately, the 36 developed countries were legally bound to the greenhouse gas targets, and 17 of them failed to meet the greenhouse gas targets. First of all, they are not even meeting the targets. Some countries that joined Kyoto, like Iceland, had targets that actually granted increases in greenhouse gas emissions, while others, like Russia, had a target of zero that required them to do nothing. The same thing is true for Russia today with the Paris Agreement. Russia pledged to reduce its carbon emissions by 30 percent but made their promise based on emission levels from 1990, not their current emission levels today. So they could actually increase their emissions and still comply with the commitment that they made in Paris. Of course, they were looking at--and I remember from all the other meetings that Russia is sitting back there with areas such as Siberia, without any development, and they could use that as land that is not being developed, where there are no emissions, so it sounded as though they are really doing something. I had an occasion many years ago to fly a small Cessna airplane around the world, emulating the trip of Wiley Post, the aviator from Oklahoma. He was the one who was flying the airplane when Will Rogers was killed. I was emulating his flight around the world. I will never forget going all the way from Moscow to Provideniya, across Siberia. There is time zone after time zone, and there is nothing down there. It is bare down there--no houses, no industry, nothing down there. That is the land Russia has been using to give them the advantage that they have. Others, including Japan, the host country for the signing of the Kyoto Protocol significantly missed its greenhouse gas reduction targets, and instead they increased. Here is the host country, and they increased their emissions. There were warning signs that the countries would fail to meet the Kyoto targets. For example, in 2005, the year Kyoto went into force, as then-chairman of the EPW committee, I held hearings on Kyoto where I questioned the U.S. senior climate change negotiator, Harlan Watson, about the European Union countries meeting their targets. Watson testified at the time that only two of the EU countries, the U.K. and Sweden, were on track to reach their targets. In other words, they all had targets, but only two countries met them. Another witness, Dr. Margo Thorning of the American Council for Capital Formation, told the Committee at the hearing that the European Union ``policymakers are beginning to worry about the additional steps required to meet the targets.'' We now know they were right. The EU, one of the staunchest advocates for the global greenhouse gas emission cuts, barely reached half of the targets required by Kyoto. If developed countries like those in the European Union have ignored legally binding gas emission targets in Kyoto, it is highly unlikely that they would meet the voluntary reductions that are in the Paris Agreement. Within the EU, some individual countries, such as Poland, have already shown fierce opposition to the Paris Agreement due to the fact that they are relying on coal power to run their country. There also has been vigorous debate over EU emissions reductions, and so far further cuts are off the table due to climate leadership fatigue from Kyoto. Everybody is tired of it. Some have said Paris is different because developing countries like China agreed to the greenhouse gas targets. However, as is normally the case, you have to read a little bit closer. China's climate change commitment to peak their emissions by 2030 is business as usual. Yes, they signed on. They are a developing country. But what did they sign? They agreed to increase their emissions until 2030, and then they will reconsider. After making their pledge, the New York Times uncovered that China dramatically underreported the amount of coal it burns per year, burning 17 percent more than what China had previously reported during climate talks. Just last month, a London School of Economics and Political Science researcher found that it is possible that Chinese emissions have already peaked. It is no wonder when the country is bringing online a new coal-powered powerplant every 10 days. We keep hearing from all of our do-good friends: Just give China a chance. They are going to follow our leadership. Yes, they are going to follow our leadership, all right. They are anxious for us to meet our reductions as we chase our manufacturing base to someplace like China, which would be the recipient of it. China is putting online a new coal-fired plant every 10 days. Why would China bother putting forth such a commitment and why would the Obama administration promote it as historic? First, it is in the interest of China to ensure this commitment is ratified because it makes it more difficult for the United States and the European Union to get out of economically damaging regulations. Second, it is in the interest of President Obama to sign this agreement since his own legacy hinges on its ratification. For the agreement to come into force, 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of emissions are going to have to sign. We have seen this before. Think back to Kyoto. Clinton did not have the support of the Senate, yet Clinton delegated his U.S. Ambassador to sign it. That is exactly what is happening today. President Obama doesn't want to go there because President Obama is fully familiar with the fact that they can't reach their targets, and besides that, we have the U.S. Supreme Court stepping in and saying that they can't do it. The Obama administration should take note that history does repeat itself. If Secretary Kerry signs the Paris Agreement--which he will--it will be an act in defiance of the lessons from the past and in defiance of the best interests of the American people, all while achieving no meaningful impact on global temperatures. Just like Kyoto, countries will not comply. Here at home, the President's means to force the United States to achieve a 26- to 28-percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025--primarily through the so-called Clean Power Plan, which is likely to get struck by the courts--is extremely limited. Its implementation has already been blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. We have 27 countries that have filed lawsuits against the plan. We actually had someone from the National Chamber of Commerce and the Sierra Club come before our committee just a few weeks ago saying: Look, there is no way in the world that you can have this kind of a reduction. So it is dead in the water anyway, with 40 percent doing business as usual. Only 15 percent could have an effect from the power plan, and then the rest--45 percent--are not even in the middle of it. Besides that, the Supreme Court has now said that until all the litigation has cleared up, nothing is going to happen. They intervened in that as well as the WOTUS regulations--the waters of the United States. So it is not going to happen. They are going to have their party there. The President is embarrassed, and he is sending John Kerry to do his dirty work. I hope all 196 of the countries send their representatives to New York because I would love to have them get to know America, travel around, spend their money, and go down historic Highway 66 that goes through my State of Oklahoma. They will have a wonderful time while they are here, but they might as well skip the New York part. I see my good friend from Indiana, and, with that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, today I wish to highlight the 100-year history of the Triangle Cooperative Service Company of Enid, OK. This year, 2016, is their 100th year in business in Oklahoma, and I am pleased to highlight them on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Triangle Cooperative Service Company was founded in 1916 by 20 local Oklahoma cooperatives to ensure rural Oklahomans could get their grain products to market at a fair price via rail. Soon, they grew their business to support Oklahomans in other ways, including helping conduct grain audits and by providing accounting services. In 1929, it was decided that Triangle Cooperative Service Company would continue to offer member services to the local cooperatives, while a separate entity would be the official Grain Sales Agency for both Oklahoma and Texas. During the 1930s and the 1940s, a large number of grain facilities and cotton gins were built throughout Oklahoma. These new facilities created an increased demand for insurance to protect Oklahoma's farming communities from drought, natural disasters, and other severe weather events. In 1932, TCSC Insurance Agency was formed and molded the future of the Triangle organization. The Triangle Insurance Company was chartered on January 3, 1992, officially becoming a licensed property and casualty insurance company within the State of Oklahoma. In 1996, the memberships of Triangle Cooperative Service Company and Producers Exchange Cooperative voted to merge the two cooperatives. This decision to merge marked the beginning of Triangle's expansion. Today, Triangle Cooperative Service Company has grown to 125 employees and over 300 members throughout 20 Midwestern States, continuing to spread its proud tradition of quality service. In addition to the insurance agency and insurance company, Triangle Cooperative Service Company offers its member cooperatives employee group benefits, HR solutions and safety, and compliance management. Today, the Triangle Cooperative Service Company is cooperatively owned and governed by a board of directors and Mr. John Berg serves as president and CEO. I am pleased to highlight the history and journey of the Triangle Cooperative Service Company as part of their 100-year history today.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the Casey amendment be agreed to; the committee-reported amendment, as amended, be agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read a third time and passed; and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.