Jim Inhofe

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me add one additional thing to the statement that was made by the Senator from Florida; and that is, what does the House version do? I would like to first of all make it very clear that what we are going to see and ultimately vote on is what the House has right now. They have a starting place. But it does some things that I think are significant. One, it repeals the mandate and the Obama taxes. It changes the regulations back to the State--where most individuals prefer they be in--from Washington. HSAs are part of this plan. Preexisting conditions are there. It converts Medicaid. So I think we need to keep our powder dry. We need to look and see. I think most of the people in my State of Oklahoma consider ObamaCare to be a disaster, and it needs to be changed and it is going to be changed.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 15; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; finally, that following leader remarks, the Senate proceed to executive session as under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me say that that was an excellent presentation by Senator Harris. I can recall when she first came here, and I sat down with her and we talked about her predecessor and about how people with diverse philosophies can get along and actually love each other. I would expect the same thing to happen in this case--because it does. I listened to some of the things that were said by the new Senator from California, talking about the rule of law, about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the First Amendment. I agree. I am hoping that we end up with more things in common than things that would keep us apart because we have a lot to do. We need to get busy doing it. I appreciate very much hearing the opening speech by Senator Harris. Mr. President, I wanted to get to the floor because it won't be long until we will be voting on my Oklahoma attorney general, Scott Pruitt. I am looking forward to it. He and I go back a long way. I know that he has been through the ringer, as a lot of them have. I look at Jeff Sessions and some of the abusive things that were said about him during the time that he was going through this process. Of course, the same thing has been true with Scott Pruitt. Scott Pruitt just happens to be not only a candidate who is going to make an excellent Administrator of the EPA, but he is also one who knows the job. He has been there. He has been attorney general for Oklahoma, my State. He lives in my home town of Tulsa, OK. So I know him quite well. In fact, I am in aviation, and I remember flying him around the State in some areas, introducing him when he was just starting out in the statewide race. I think he is going to do a really good job. It is my understanding that my colleagues on the other side are determined to run the clock before we vote on Attorney General Pruitt, and they are using the opportunity to make the case that he will destroy the environment and return pollution to the air and water. Yet they know that he will do nothing of the sort. Attorney General Pruitt is highly qualified. Yes, it is true that he has had the occasion to file lawsuits on behalf of the State of Oklahoma against the Environmental Protection Agency. I can assure you that he knows that he has represented the State of Oklahoma. There are many other States that were doing the same thing. He is a believer in the rule of law and will uphold the laws as passed by Congress within constitutional bounds. He has built a career defending the law, and I see no cause for concern that he will ever stop. He has been practicing law in Oklahoma since 1993, when he graduated from law school at the University of Tulsa. In 1998, he ran and was elected to the Oklahoma State Senate, where he served for 6 years. During that time in the Oklahoma State Senate, he was seen as a leader, someone who could be counted upon, and someone who should be in higher office in the State. Of course, that is what happened. Since 2010, he has been the Attorney General for Oklahoma. He became a respected defender of the State's role in our Federal system of government. As EPA Administrator, Pruitt will continue to uphold core constitutional principles and won't be engaged in the same Federal overreach that we have seen over the last 8 years. I know there are varying philosophies in this body. I know there are people who want to concentrate the power in Washington. They see nothing wrong with what we refer to as governmental overreach. I have experienced this because it happens that I was the chairman, as well as the ranking member, of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which has the jurisdiction over the Environmental Protection Agency. So I have watched this take place. I know that there are members of the Environment and Public Works Committee who have differing philosophies as to what the EPA should be doing. They see outsiders. They see the State, sometimes, as someone who is opposed to the things they are trying to do. But we have watched this happen over the last 8 years. Attorney General Pruitt has said again and again that he will uphold the laws that we pass right here in Congress--no more and no less. So it is up to us as lawmakers to provide him with effective bipartisan legislation that will make a positive difference for the environment and for our future, while balancing State and private interests. This balance is possible and Scott Pruitt is a testament to this balance. Oklahoma is an energy State. Oklahoma is an agricultural State. We care a great deal about the land we live on and the air we breathe, and we want to be sure it is safe for our families and for generations to come. I think about the Administrator that was there during the years of the Obama administration, and he was actually in a hearing just a few hours ago. He talked about how comforting it was to come to our State of Oklahoma--which he did twice. He learned that landowners are on the side of the environment. They are the ones who want to care for the land. They are the ones who want to exert whatever energies are necessary to take care of the problems with pollution that are present in this world. As attorney general, Mr. Pruitt has worked closely with the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality and the Oklahoma Water Resources Board to protect Oklahoma's scenic rivers from upstream pollution. As a matter of fact, as to his reputation, he is ``Mr. Scenic Rivers'' back in Oklahoma. I don't understand how people concerned with the environment are opposing him and saying things about him that are detrimental. He was able to use unbiased logic and science to reach an agreement with the State of Arkansas to protect our water in Oklahoma. He has also been instrumental in negotiating a historic water settlement agreement. This agreement was between the State of Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation, and the Chickasaw Nation. This thing, I say to the Presiding Officer, has been in litigation for 100 years. He walked in, and he resolved the problem. It was a battle that had gone on for 100 years. One of the chief concerns of the Chickasaw and the Choctaw Nations was to ensure that conservation guidelines were preserved. The agreement not only provides Oklahoma City with its long-term water needs but also protects our two Indian nations with their conservation goals. Again, this was tried by a lot of people over a period of 100 years until Scott Pruitt came along. He is the one who did it. He has sued the EPA and fought against the Fish and Wildlife Service at times. It has all been in Oklahoma's best interest. Now he will have the entire Nation's best interest in mind when making decisions as the EPA Administrator. I have no doubt that he will continue to protect our State's interests from overreach and unnecessary harmful regulations. It is no secret that Attorney General Pruitt's confirmation process has been unusually lengthy. It is time we vote to confirm him in this position. We had his nomination hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee. That was back on January 18, almost a month ago. That hearing was one to be remembered because we broke a record by asking 4 rounds of questions. I suggest that no one in this confirmation process this year or in the last three generations has had to undergo four rounds of questions. During the course of this day-long, 8-hour hearing, he answered more than 200 questions. Now, after this, he responded to more than 1,000 questions for the record, including the extra questions Senator Carper asked him in a December 28 letter, as Attorney General Pruitt promised he would. Now, this means that he answered--these are questions for the record--1,600 questions. The average director, during confirmation over the last 3 Presidential years, had 200. So it is 200 questions, as opposed to 1,600 questions that he was subjected to. He never complained about it and actually did a great job. Now, despite the Democrats' efforts to delay his confirmation vote, we need to be responsible and move forward to confirm Attorney General Pruitt. The longer we postpone this vote, the longer it is going to take for things to get done at the EPA. Right now nothing can get done. Everyone knows that. That is wrong. I know that Attorney General Pruitt will continue to be a champion for economic development and environmental responsibility by upholding the law and restoring the Environmental Protection Agency to its role as a regulatory agency, not an activist organization. You know, this is all for show because everybody knows the votes are there. He is going to be approved. I look forward to working with him. I think he is ready now to move in and do the job. It is going to be a while before he is able to get the other positions confirmed. That is why it is important to go ahead and do it, and I understand we are going to be doing it when this time runs out. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, will the Senator yield for a UC request?

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from New York, I be recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, since I did not object to the additional 30 seconds, I ask unanimous consent that my 5 minutes be changed to 5 minutes and 30 seconds.

Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, a quick comment about climate change: No one--no one--has denied that the climate is consistently changing. All the Scriptural evidence, historical evidence, and archeological evidence says, yes, it has always been changing and always will change. But what they are trying to infer is that because of that, then the world is coming to an end because of what? Manmade gases--anthropogenic gases--manmade gases. That is what the real hoax is, but I am not going to waste my time on that. However, I will next week, I might add. The Senator from New York talked about the fact that we have an attorney general who has sued the EPA many times. Let me just remind everyone--and I don't think I have heard this on the floor, but I have watched Democrat after Democrat after Democrat come by and just brutally attack Scott Pruitt, a guy I know to be an honorable man. I don't know of one attorney general who has served with him who doesn't agree with that. In terms of suing, I think it is important to understand that almost every Democrat who has stood up and said disparaging things about Scott Pruitt and talked about the fact that he has sued the EPA countless times--their attorney general from their State has also sued the EPA. I will read the States: The attorneys general from Wisconsin, Colorado, Ohio, Nevada, Indiana, New Mexico, Missouri, Florida, Michigan, and Montana, all have Democratic Members of the Senate who have been criticizing Scott Pruitt. Their own States have filed lawsuits against the EPA. The other thing I want to mention, which I think is very important, is a letter from our newest Senator, Luther Strange. Senator Strange is the replacement for our Honorable Jeff Sessions, who now is the Attorney General. This letter is signed by two pages of attorneys general from all over America--Democratic States, Republican States, States where Democrats have come to this floor criticizing him. I will read the last two paragraphs of the letter from Luther Strange signed by all of these Democratic and Republican Attorneys General: Scott Pruitt is more than just an exemplary state attorney general, he is also our friend. A man of deep faith who is committed to his family and to his friends, Scott seeks always to do the right thing. His friendship and leadership have been invaluable to us over the years. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency plays a critical role in our Nation's government. Keep in mind, this is coming from Democratic attorneys general. Attorney General Pruitt has proven over the course of his career that he has the right character, experience, and knowledge to serve as the Administrator of the EPA. We urge the Senate to confirm his nomination. This is signed by about 22 attorneys general, Democrats and Republicans. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent this letter, along with the list of States who have had occasion to sue the EPA, the same as Scott Pruitt has, be printed in the Record.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania, and the answer is, yes, I am prepared.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I believe Betsy DeVos is going to be an excellent Secretary of Education.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my defense fellow, Captain James Hart, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this calendar year.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity to get wedged in here. There are a number of very interesting things happening today. One is the CRA that I am very much concerned about. I know that my good friend from Massachusetts did not misrepresent something intentionally; however, this is a little bit more complicated than people think it is. I spoke earlier this week on our need to roll back a lot of these regulations that were handed down during the Obama administration. They are all a part of that War on Fossil Fuels, and as you hear, that war is still going on with some of those individuals. However, President Obama is gone, and now we have to look at some of these overregulations. For a number of years, I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. During that period of time, that particular committee had the jurisdiction over the EPA, which is where most of the bad regulations came from. When I say ``bad regulations,'' I am talking about the overregulations that make it very difficult for our companies to compete with foreign companies that don't have these types of regulations. Let me share something that is not very well understood, and that is what a CRA really is. There are a lot of people of the liberal persuasion who would like very much to have everything they could regulated in Washington, DC. For example, one of the fights we had was the WOTUS fight. If you ask any of the farmers and ranchers in America--not just in my State of Oklahoma but Nebraska and many other States--what is the most serious problem they have, they would say it is the overregulation of the EPA. If you ask them, of all the regulations, which ones are the most difficult for the farmers out there trying to scratch a living, they will say it is the regulations on water. Historically, the jurisdiction of water is a State jurisdiction. Now, a liberal always wants that jurisdiction to be with the Federal Government in Washington. That is their nature. I don't criticize them for that. They believe that. But if you ask the farmers in my State of Oklahoma, they will say they don't want that to happen. Historically, water has always been the State's jurisdiction, with the exception of navigable water. We understand that navigable water should have a Federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would have to say there was a real effort 6 years ago by a Senator who at that time was representing the State of Wisconsin and a House Member who was representing a district in Minnesota. Those two individuals introduced legislation to take the word ``navigable'' out of water regulations so the Federal Government would have jurisdiction over all of the water in the States as opposed to the State having that jurisdiction. Not only did we defeat the legislation, but both of those Members were defeated in the polls when they came up for reelection on that issue. The people are clearly on our side. Where does a CRA come in? A CRA is something that has been used to shed light on what we are doing here. I am talking about with respect to our elected representatives. If there are regulations that are punitive to the businesses back home, when the Senator goes back to his or her State, they can say: Well, that wasn't I, that was an unelected bureaucrat who did that. I am opposed to it. They have a shield so people don't really know where they stand. A CRA takes away that shield because the CRA challenges a regulation, and it has to be voted on, forcing Members of the Senate and the House to be responsible for how they are really voting. It is a way of shedding light. We have a lot of CRAs coming. One is going to be a CRA that I sponsored having to do with a regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill, in section 1504. As I mentioned, most of the overregulations come from the EPA, but this particular regulation didn't come from the EPA. It came from the Dodd-Frank banking legislation having to do with financial services. It is in a section that had nothing to do with financial services. Section 1504 requires all information to be made public that would come from a bid. In the United States of America, our oil and gas companies are in the private sector, but in China it is run by the government. If we are competing for an oil and gas issue that might be in Tanzania and we are competing with China, China would be competing as a government, and we would be doing it in the private sector. Section 1504 requires the private sector to disclose all elements of their bid when they are competing for a contract with China. The reason for this initially was to preclude a country's leaders from attempting to steal money that was given to them for a certain oil project. With this disclosure, they would not be able to do it. Well, you don't have to have all the components of the bid. All you have to have is the top line, how much money was actually sent to, in this case, the country of Tanzania. The courts came along in 2014 and said this regulation was wrong. There are a couple of problems. One problem is that there is no reason in the world that you should have a mandate to disclose all the details of a bid because that is giving away information to the competition, giving the other side an advantage. The other problem is the expense of it. We are talking about $600 million a year that would be borne by the private sector in America that China would not have to pay. So it only punishes those within the United States. After the courts threw this out, the SEC should have reworked the rule. They were instructed to rework the rule so every detail of the bidding did not have to be disclosed, just the total amount. That solved the problem that was perceived to be out there because then it would be known that so much money, for instance, maybe a check for $50 million, would go out, and we wouldn't have to break down the details of it. The main thing is, we need to know, in good government--and that was the intention in the first place--how much money was going to a foreign government. Some have argued that the CRA is motivated by companies who want to get around transparency. That is clearly not the case. The courts have said it is not the case. Oil and gas companies in particular are longstanding supporters of greater transparency initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the EITI, that is a multilateral, multistakeholder global initiative composed of energy companies, civil society organizations, and host governments. The EITI rules would apply equally to all companies that would be operating in a country. That would level the playing field. We have also heard from those on the left saying that voting to repeal the rule would be a vote in favor of corruption. Yet, importantly, the United States already has in place the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits the paying of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or trying to retain business. The Federal Government is able to bring civil enforcement actions against companies that violate this rule, and section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act did not change that. That was in place before and is still in place now. If we pass the CRA and eliminate section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is not going to change things. There are others in the humanitarian community who have expressed concern to me that the CRA will undermine efforts to fight corruption in other governments around the world. Let me assure you that I support your goal. The courts were emphatic when they said this regulation should be repealed. In fact, it was taken down by the court way back in 2013. Well, it has come back up again. What we want to do is merely comply with what the courts told us to do in 2013, and that is to use the CRA to knock out this section 1504 and go back and rewrite it to take out merely the requirement for a breakdown of all the individual elements of a contract. That is something we intend to do. I see my good friend from West Virginia, who I think would understand just as well as anyone that when I go back to my State of Oklahoma, they say to me: You have a President--this was back when President Obama was President--who has a War on Fossil Fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil, gas, and I would include nuclear. Coming from my State of Oklahoma, they ask: Explain how, if 89 percent of the power that is generated in America comes from fossil fuels and nuclear and they are successful in doing away with it, how do we run this machine called America? The answer is, we can't. We have to have it. I think we all understand what we want to do is have this rule changed so we are not put at a competitive disadvantage so we are able to go ahead and compete with countries that have a government-run system. To be able to do that, we need to rewrite this particular act. Again, the courts have already agreed to that and that is what we are attempting to do. For those concerned about the timing and speed of the CRA, I have good news. The actual rule is not set to go into effect until 2018 anyway. The more swiftly we can enact the CRA, the more time it will give us and the SEC to rework it. This is something that is perfectly acceptable. Some of my critics say we can't come back with a rule that is substantially the same. This will not be substantially the same. Actually, this is what the court recommended in 2013. In closing, I want to ask this question: If we put forth a rule that makes it harder for U.S. companies overseas, who will fill the void? The U.S. companies have the best environmental standards, the best labor practices, and the least corruption of many of the other countries. However, if this vacuum is there, the business will go to companies from China, India, and Mexico that don't care about pollution and don't care about labor standards. That is not what we want to have happen. What we need to do is foster a strong competitive environment, with reduced corruption overseas, for the benefit of those living under these governments. So I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort to do away with this regulation through the CRA and to repeal section 1504 of Dodd- Frank and rewrite it so it accomplishes the goal of stopping corruption and at the same time is not going to put us at a competitive disadvantage. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a request? I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Ohio, I be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know that President Obama is gone now, but his War on Fossil Fuels is alive and well. However, they are not winning that. Back in Oklahoma, they ask me the question sometimes: If all of the liberals are concerned and if they are all opposed to fossil fuels--and to nuclear, I might add; coal, oil, gas, and nuclear--if coal, oil, gas, and nuclear are responsible for 89 percent of the power it takes to run this country, how do you run the country without those? Those are the kinds of questions we get. I appreciate and--I know it is a very popular statement that was made by my friend from Ohio; unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the issues we are looking at right now. Back during the time Dodd-Frank was considered, it was dealing with banks and financial institutions. It had nothing to do with energy. Yet section 1504 was put in there. Part of section 1504 required that information be provided during the course of a competitive situation for some kind of a project. I will give you an example. We have a private sector in our oil and gas. For China, that is a government project. If we are competing with them--let's say for some cause that is in Tanzania or someplace--they said, so that there is a safeguard and there can't be corruption, so that if we should win--I say ``we,'' but I am talking about the private sector in the United States of America--then they have to report the information to the SEC, which in turn makes it published. Their intent was not to have to break down everything that was in that offer. It is the bottom line. What is the total cost that goes to these countries? What are the total costs? That is all they care about because if that money went to Tanzania--and there are some corrupt officials there and they might steal some of the money, but to keep that from happening, we want to report what the cost was in the winning party. You don't have to have all that information. In fact, in 2013, the court struck this down because they said that was not the intent. The intent was to have the total figure, so they said, even suggested--and our intent at that time was to vacate that, as the court did vacate that rule and send it back and have the SEC redo it in such a way that it would affect only the amount of money that would go that might cause some corruption at some time. That is what it was all about. Unfortunately, they put together another one that was very similar and required a lot of information that was not necessary. I would like to correct something on the CRA that the Senator from Ohio said. The CRA is there because when an unelected bureaucrat comes out with some kind of an unreasonable rule that is very costly to the people of this country and it is done by someone who is not an elected official, the elected official says: Look at this. Wait a minute. This is something that people are complaining about when I go home. They love that because they can say: This wasn't me. This wasn't me. This was an unelected bureaucrat that put these rules in. What a CRA does is make us in the House and in the Senate more accountable because we have to then stand up and vote on something, saying that we endorse this rule or we don't endorse this rule. That is what it is all about. Anyway, we have an opportunity here to go ahead, and I am certainly hoping that we will do this and change this rule so that it would make as a requirement nothing but the amount of money that is paid by the winning party in a situation where they are competing with each other. If that happens, then we will know how much money that was, and we will be able to go to the party and find out if they are stealing some of this money. Why is it necessary to have all of the components of competition when you have the private sector in the United States of America competing with countries like China where it is a government- owned institution? That is all this is about. All we want to do is to be able say we want to report so that the public knows how much the total bid or, in this case, the total amount was, not all the components that went into the calculation of that. That is all it is about. My time has expired. I yield the floor.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Honorable Elaine Chao to serve as the next Secretary of Transportation. She has proven she has the experience and the drive to help her accomplish President Trump's goals to address our nation's infrastructure needs heads on. I have known Elaine for many decades as a dedicated civil servant and a talented negotiator and have no doubt she will again prove to be a highly effective asset to the Executive branch. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and, at the age of 8, came with her family to America by cargo ship where, at the age of 19, she became a U.S. citizen. From those humble beginnings, she went on to receive degrees from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts and Harvard Business School. Elaine Chao began her executive career at the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1986, as Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration, then as Deputy Secretary from 1989 to 1991. She served as the Director of the Peace Corps, in 1991, where she brought the Peace Corp programs to the liberated countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania; and as president and CEO of the United Way of America where she helped restore fiscal responsibility to an organization that had been damaged by mismanagement. In 2001, she become the 24th U.S. Secretary of Labor, the first Asian Pacific American woman to be appointed to the President's cabinet in American history, in President George W. Bush's cabinet. During her 8- year tenure at the Department of Labor Department, she proved she has the skills to manage large multifaceted organizations as well as to initiate needed reforms and new programs that help create jobs and competiveness in the workforce. Quite frankly, she was the best Secretary of Labor the United States has ever had. During her tenure, the Department updated the white collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been on the agenda of every administration since 1977. The most significant regulatory tort reform of President Bush's first term, the new regulations provided millions of low-wage vulnerable workers with strengthened overtime protection. In 2003, under her leadership, the Department achieved the first major update of union financial disclosure regulations in more than 40 years, giving rank and file members enhanced information on how their hard-earned dues are spent. The Department set new worker protection enforcement records, including recovering record back wages for vulnerable low-wage immigrant workers. The Department also launched comprehensive reform of the Nation's publicly funded worker training programs, to better serve dislocated and unemployed workers. I have complete confidence in her abilities and look forward to working with her in her new capacity as the 18th U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my 10 minutes be extended to 15 minutes.

Mr. INHOFE. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, we are introducing today a CRA that is kind of interesting. This is something that has only been successful one time. I think everyone knows that during the past 8 years, under the Obama administration, we have seen thousands, literally thousands of regulations that have come through that have been anti-business, many of them anti-certain businesses, such as the oil and gas industries. It is no secret, the fact that we have had a President, in President Obama, who has had a war on fossil fuels. It is interesting to me that when I go back to my State of Oklahoma-- one reason I go back all the time is because I want to be around real, rational people. Sometimes I get the feeling there really aren't any around here. They ask questions. They will say: Tell me. Explain this to me. In the United States of America, in order to generate power, 89 percent of the power we are generating is either fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. If we do away with 89 percent of our generation capability, then how do we run the machine called America? The answer is that we can't. But we don't get those types of questions here. I am sure most of us who go back find that kind of concern, and it is not confined to Oklahoma. I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee during the 8 years--during the time President Obama was in office, and most of the regulations were actually associated with that committee. Many committees have regulations associated with their committees but not nearly as many as Environment and Public Works. An example is the WOTUS regulation. Ask anyone with the American Farm Bureau or anyone who deals with farmers and ranchers, and the No. 1 problem they have, they will tell you, is nothing that is found on the AgNu Committee; it is the overregulation of the EPA. That is one example. The Environment and Public Works Committee is the committee that has the jurisdiction over the EPA--at least we are supposed to. During the time when WOTUS came through--the water regulation--it has historically always been the States' jurisdiction to handle water issues, not the Federal Government, with the exception of navigable water. I think we all understand that. In fact, there were several liberal Members in the House and Senate who tried to take the word ``navigable'' out of the regulations, and we defeated them every time. The last two who tried to do that were, in fact, defeated in the polls. We know that in the State of Oklahoma--I should say our farmers know that if you put the Federal Government in charge of water regulations in the western part of Oklahoma, which is an arid part of the State, it would end up being designated as a wetland. Anyway, that is a major concern they had. Another example of regulation is President Obama's Clean Power Plan. We all know how that came about. Way back in 1972, I was one of the bad guys who told the truth about what they were referring to as global warming, saying the world was coming to an end. Even though a lot of the Members of this body didn't join in and agree with me, every time, without exception, they came up with a bill that would do something-- such as a cap-and-trade bill, for example--we defeated the bill, and it was continually defeated by an even larger margin as time went by. President Obama came in, and when he couldn't get the legislation he wanted passed, he tried to do it through regulation. That is what he did with the Clean Power Plan--another rule that was rejected. I only bring up those examples because they are typical regulations that put people out of business that actually came through my committee. I am here to introduce S.J. Res. 9. This did not come through my committee; it came through a provision that is in the Dodd-Frank bill. Anyone going back to their States and talking to bankers or anyone in the financial industry, when talking about the Dodd-Frank bill, it is an example of the same type of overregulation that takes place on many of the issues that come before my committee. Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to develop a rule that requires companies to report payments made to a foreign government or the U.S. Federal Government relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, and minerals. That is a requirement which is not found in our committee, but it is found in the committee that handled the Dodd-Frank bill. While that may not sound all that significant, it strikes at the heart of American competitiveness. It makes public the information of our very best companies on how to win oil and gas deals. It requires companies to disclose and make public highly confidential and commercially sensitive information, and this is information that foreign competitors don't have to provide. Under this regulation, we would be required to provide it. That means that American companies would have to disclose all of the background and sensitive information that companies develop in competing for contracts of some kind having to do with oil and gasoline. It could be with another country, like Iran. It could be with individuals over there who are not friendly to the United States. Countries that don't wish to disclose the details of their commercial deals would now have a strong incentive to go with companies in countries that don't have that burdensome requirement. That is only natural. To make matters worse, the SEC's rule lacks an exemption for circumstances in which disclosure under 1504 would violate the laws of a country where a U.S. company is operating. So it leaves U.S. companies with a choice of complying with U.S. laws or the laws of foreign countries. That is an impossible position to be in and could put U.S. employees at risk of criminal prosecution abroad for facilitating the release of this information. If that weren't enough, the cost of complying with this regulation is enormous. American companies would have to comply, and it could cost millions of dollars. The SEC's estimate of the total compliance cost initially would be up to $700 million. The ongoing compliance costs would be as much as $581 million annually. Those costs would be borne by U.S. companies, and our competition would not have to do that. The courts already struck down this rule when it was first developed in August 2012. The DC Federal district court struck down the rule in 2013 because of two substantial errors. Specifically, the Commission had ``misread section 1504 to mandate public disclosure of the reports'' and had arbitrarily declined to provide an exemption for countries that prohibit disclosure. The new rule, finalized in June of 2016, doesn't look any different. It is the same rule. Even though the SEC was told by the courts that the rule did not reflect congressional intent, they continued to put out a new rule that had the exact same problems as the one the court had vacated. It is the same rule. It is as if the Obama administration was rushing this rule out in hopes that there wouldn't be time or an opportunity for a court or Congress to overturn it. But here we are in the process of overturning it. Last week President Trump issued an Executive order to reduce the regulatory impact on American businesses. With this CRA, we have an opportunity to effectively participate in that. Our focus should always be America first. As the Congress looks at the competitiveness of American companies, we should not be subjecting our own citizens to lawsuits, and that is exactly what this regulation would do. By the way, I think we are going to get a lot of CRAs going forward, and I think it is important for people to understand what the CRA is. The CRA is the Congressional Review Act. There are a lot of liberal people who like to have power concentrated in Washington--like with the WOTUS rule. They would rather have the jurisdiction of the waters of the United States with the Federal Government instead of with State governments. That is human nature. That is not something up for debate. Everybody knows that. When individuals who are trying to centralize power in Washington go home and hear complaints from people in their States about regulations and overregulation in our society, their response is, well, that is not us, that is some unelected bureaucrat. A CRA forces Members of the Senate and House of Representatives to be held accountable to the people by having to take a position so that they can't go home and say: No, the regulators are doing this. It is interesting because it puts them in a position where, if we pass a CRA--and we are going to pass S.J. Res. 9--this will come before this body and we will have to say yes or no. Should we do away with this rule that everyone back home is opposed to? It forces them to be honest. I think this is one CRA that many Democrats should be sponsoring and voting for, and I wouldn't be surprised if we are able to get some cosponsors. Let me add one last point to outline what this is about. Within the Dodd-Frank bill, section 1504 is a requirement on U.S. companies competing for oil and gas deals throughout the world to disclose to their competition what goes into their bid and how they are putting it together, even when the other side doesn't have to do that. I look forward to having the opportunity to bring this to the floor as soon as we get our initial 30 signatures on here. Senators will see and have an opportunity to support this first CRA that I am very excited about.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I was not preparing to come down to speak today, but I just want to make a few comments because I have been listening to what is going on in one of the other rooms out there. Everyone is zeroing in and targeting a guy named Scott Pruitt, who they don't think should be confirmed to be the Administrator of the EPA. I know Scott Pruitt very well, and he happens to be the attorney general for my State of Oklahoma. In fact, I recruited him to run for the State legislature many years ago, and he is someone I know very well. He resides in my city of Tulsa, OK, and he is eminently qualified for this position. I would just like to make a couple of comments in response. I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee for some number of years, and during that timeframe, we started considering his nomination. I heard all kinds of criticism. I say to the Chair that they talk about the fact that he has sued the EPA and how can a person who has sued the EPA be qualified to serve as the Administrator of the EPA? Well, I think that is a pretty good qualification, considering what the EPA was doing during the Obama administration. Look at some of the lawsuits he has been involved with. ``WOTUS'' is the acronym for ``waters of the United States.'' Of the many regulations they have come up with, this is one of the most onerous. In fact, I would say that probably in all States--Louisiana, Oklahoma, and the rest of them--they gave the same response as the farm girl gave when we asked the question--I asked the question: What is the worst thing that could happen or has happened to the farmers and ranchers of America--not just in Oklahoma but throughout America? And they said it is not anything that is in the Agriculture bill, it is the overregulation of the EPA. When we ask the question ``Which of all the overregulations of the EPA is the worst one?'' according to farmers, it is the WOTUS regulation, the waters of the United States. For as long as I can remember, liberals have tried to get the jurisdiction of water away from the States and give it to the Federal Government. I mean, that is the general philosophy of someone who is liberal--they want the power of the United States to be concentrated in Washington. So this is a part of that effort. As a matter of fact, it was 6 years ago that there was a House Member and a Senate Member who introduced a bill to take the word ``navigable'' out of our laws. State governments have control of all water rights except for navigable waters. If they had taken the word ``navigable'' out, the Federal Government could have taken over the entire jurisdiction. The two who were doing that were Senator Feingold from Wisconsin and Congressman Oberstar from Minnesota. Not only did we defeat both of those pieces of legislation 6 years ago, but they were both defeated at the polls afterward. So if this is an issue, it is an issue that has been around for a long time. So yes, in fact, Scott Pruitt, as the attorney general of Oklahoma, from Tulsa, joined 15 other States, including the State of Louisiana, in suing to stop the rule that the Obama administration had put through in WOTUS, the water resources. To show how he was on sound ground, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has since that time said that, yes, he was right. They put a stay on it. The next bill, the next of the regulations--I just did a TV thing where they were asking about the most onerous of regulations. It is kind of hard to answer that question because they are all so bad--they all inflict such a hardship on the business community throughout America--but the Clean Power Plan, let's go back and look at the history of that. The Clean Power Plan all started back in about 2002, when at that time they wanted to do it when they first started talking about global warming so they were going to somehow do away with the emissions of CO2. So they tried to do it with legislation in 2002, and then again in 2004, again in 2005, and about every other year since then, and it has always been rejected by the Senate. It has been rejected by the Senate by an increased margin each time. Yet they keep saying, no, we are going to have some type of cap-and-trade legislation. We calculated what that would cost. It is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and frankly it wouldn't accomplish anything. The first administrator for the EPA under Obama was Lisa Jackson. I enjoyed her. I asked her the question: If we were to do away with CO2 altogether in the United States, would this have the effect of reducing it worldwide, and she said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China, India, and in Mexico. So the more we chase our ability to generate electricity to those areas, the more--and they don't have any restrictions on CO2 emissions--then that is going to increase, not decrease. They were not able to pass it legislatively. So along comes President Obama, and he said: Well, we can't do it through legislation, we will do it through regulation, so they had the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was essentially the same thing as the legislation we defeated. So Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, came along, and he filed a lawsuit against the EPA, and this worked out really pretty well. It had a lot of support behind it. It wasn't the Sixth Circuit, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that stayed this. So what I am saying is, sure, he has had the occasion, along with some 26 other States, in the case of the Clean Power Plan, of filing a lawsuit against the EPA, but he has been successful in doing that. Let me clarify another thing that has been misrepresented on this floor several times. They referred to a characterization I gave about 4 or 5 years ago called the hoax. The hoax is not climate change. We all know the climate is constantly changing. All the evidence is there. There is scriptural evidence, historical evidence. It has always been there. The climate has always changed. The hoax is that the world is coming to an end because of manmade gases. That is the clarification that needs to be made if we are going to be completely honest. By the way, when they criticized Scott Pruitt for suing the EPA, I am reminding them that he also has sued several oil companies, including ConocoPhillips--he had a lawsuit against them for alleged double dipping--as well as BP and Chevron, so it is not just as if he is somehow owned by the oil companies. I always have to say, when people say the oil companies contribute to campaigns, not anything like the far left environmentalists do. I remember Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer said before the 2014 elections: I am going to put $100 million of my money to elect people who go along with all of these far-left programs. Of course, it didn't work in 2014. He actually at that time spent $75 million. This is one individual we are talking about. So those guys over there, they are the ones who are putting money into campaigns, and I understand that. The last thing I want to correct--and I wish more people would talk about this. Frankly, I wish President Trump would say more about this because they always talk about how 97 percent of the scientists go along with the global warming thing. That isn't true at all. In fact, if you go to my Web site, you will find a piece that was in the Wall Street Journal that makes it very clear that isn't true and documents that case. The scientists who have been saying this are one group that is called the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the United Nations, in case there is someone who doesn't understand that. They are the ones who have provided all the credibility in terms of the science that backs up all the statements that are made about global warming. I had the occasion--some people are not aware that once every December, now for 21 years, the United Nations has had the biggest party of the year. It is always in some exotic place. I remember in 2009 it was in Copenhagen. We had all the people--several friends I love dearly here in the U.S. Senate and in the House went over there to tell 192 countries that we were going to pass legislation that would have cap and trade. I went over as the truth squad of one person to tell them what had been represented to them was, in fact, not going to happen. Well, right before going, Lisa Jackson was the first nominee, or the first confirmed Administrator of the EPA. I asked her the question on the record, live on TV, in the committee room, on the committee that I chaired, I said: I am going to be going over to Copenhagen to tell them the truth over there, and, in the meantime, you are going to take over jurisdiction so you can try to do this with a regulation. To do that, you have to have an endangerment finding. To have an endangerment finding, you have to have science behind that. She was smiling. She is a very honest person. I asked her: What science are you going to use for your endangerment finding that gives you the opportunity to do what you couldn't do with legislation that you think you can do with regulation? She said: The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. As luck would have it, it was a matter of days after that that climategate came about. How many people remember climategate? They never talk about it. Let me just tell you how it was characterized. Climategate was those individuals who were at the top of the IPCC had gotten together and tried to alter the science to support their point of view, and they got caught doing it. The world responded to it. Newsweek: ``Once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used car salesman.'' ``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . '' The U.N. scientist Dr. Philip Lloyd said: ``The result is not scientific.'' They were all talking about climategate. They were talking about how the IPCC rigged the science. A guy that was an IPCC physicist said that ``Climategate was a fraud on a scale I've never seen.'' Clive Crook of the Financial Times said that ``the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.'' Christopher Booker with the UK's Telegraph--that is one of the largest in London--said it is the ``worst scientific scandal of our generation.'' They are talking about the science that is behind the accusations they have made. So if anyone hears these claims repeated, or even if it has been repeated, saying that at least 97 percent of the scientists agree, they are not right. My time has expired, but I just wanted to clarify that so people know--because one thing I know that is going to happen is, Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, will be confirmed by a good margin--I think by a party margin--to be the Administrator of the EPA. It will be a great change. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Lee Boothby be printed in the Record in support of the nomination of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State of the United States.

Mr. INHOFE

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

Mr. INHOFE

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, just to ensure that there is no confusion, I ask that I be recognized for such time as I may consume at the conclusion of the remarks of the distinguished senior Senator from California.

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I stayed on the floor and listened to all of the remarks of the senior Senator from California. While doing that, we did some checking. My staff informs me that probably this bill has more benefits for the State of California than any bill since I have been here for 22 years so I think it is very important the people understand that if for some reason this bill doesn't pass, none of the things, the provisions the Senator was talking about, will happen so it is very significant. Since we are going to have a vote on a continuing resolution, I think at this point we need to make sure our government does not shut down. It is very important that it not shut down right in the middle of-- arguably, three wars--but that could be as late as 1 a.m. tomorrow morning. After that is when we will be considering the WRDA bill. That is the Water Resources Development Act. It is one of which I am very proud, as the current chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, to be involved in this bill that has been so eloquently described by Senator Feinstein. For the last several months, our committee has been working to put together the final WRDA package with our counterparts in the House, actually, the House Energy and Commerce, the House T&I Committee, and the Natural Resources Committee of the House. This legislation is truly a win for America. While we just heard of many things that be of benefit for the State of California, there is not one State that doesn't have benefits there. They are long overdue and coming from this legislation. WRDA authorizes 30 new navigation, flood control, and environmental restoration projects and modifies eight existing projects based on reports submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. These projects support our Nation's economic competitiveness and our well- being by deepening nationally significant ports, providing protection from disastrous floodwaters, and restoring valuable ecosystems. Let me just list a few: the Little Diomede Harbor and Craig Harbor in Alaska, the Upper Ohio River in Pennsylvania, Port Everglades in Florida, and 17 flood control and hurricane protection projects in California, Florida, Mississippi, New Jersey, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Oregon. This bill also includes ecosystem restoration in the Florida Everglades, which will fix Lake Okeechobee and stop algae blooms on the Florida coast. The bill also includes ongoing flood control and navigation safety in the Hamilton City project in California, the Rio de Flag project in Arizona, and in critical fixes for the Houston Ship Channel. The bill includes programs to help small and disadvantaged communities provide safe drinking water and will help communities address drinking water emergencies, such as the one facing the city of Flint, MI. Let's ensure that we all understand that without the authorization of this bill, there will be no Flint relief. That is very important. I want to repeat that. People don't seem to understand. There is a lot of support in this Chamber to try to help out with the problems, the disasters that took place in Flint, MI, so we have a relief package that is included in this bill, but if the bill for some reason doesn't pass, there will be no relief for Flint, MI. The House has voted to authorize Flint funding in the WRDA bill and spending in the continuing resolution. Both of these bills provide the benefit for Flint, MI, passed by over a three-fourths majority. We could not have worked closer with Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters to ensure we keep relief for Flint. I appreciate their partnership and their persistence. They were very persistent, because these provisions were in here before, but the relief is delivered. But if for some reason the bill doesn't pass, Flint gets nothing, and people have to understand that. We could not have had a closer working relationship with Senator Stabenow and Senator Peters, and I really appreciate the fact that we all worked together to accomplish this one thing. There is unanimity, and that is help for Flint, MI. The bill includes the Gold King Mine spill recovery. This section, championed by Senators Gardner, Bennet, and Udall, requires EPA to reduce costs incurred by States, tribes, and local governments to respond to the Gold King Mine spill. This bill includes rehabilitation of high-hazard potential dams. This section of the bill authorizes FEMA assistance to States to rehabilitate unsafe dams. There are 14,726 high-hazard potential dams in the United States. What that means is--the definition means that if a dam fails, lives are at stake. So the program will prevent loss of lives. The WRDA bill is bipartisan. It will play a critical role in addressing problems faced by communities, States, and our country as a whole. Earlier this week, Senator Boxer said that the House Republicans ruined a beautiful bill because some of them ``wanted to flex their muscles.'' I don't know about that, but I do agree with her that this is a beautiful bill because it does things that we haven't had the courage to get done before, so we want to make sure it passes. The House passed the WRDA bill with the drought provisions by a three-fourth vote--360 votes. I can't think of another time the House has passed something with 360 votes. But that is the popularity of this WRDA bill and all the work that has gone into it. However, there is something I don't think anyone has heard. This drought provision was drafted by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce. The savings clause prohibits any Federal agency under any administration from taking any action that would violate any environmental laws, including the Endangered Species Act and biological opinions. Don't just take my word for it; ask Senator Feinstein. She articulated this very well. People have to realize that this came from the Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce; it was not just stuck in there by the committee. We have heard claims that these operational provisions would violate environmental laws. Let's look at the actual text. Under this section 4001, any operations to provide additional water supplies can only be implemented if they are consistent with the applicable biological opinions and only if the environmental effects are consistent with effects allowed under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the California Water Quality Control Act. Section 4002 and section 4003 reiterate the requirement to comply with the smelt biological opinion and the salmon biological opinion. Senator Feinstein also covered that. Finally, section 4012 includes a savings clause--a savings clause written by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce--that ensures that the entire subtitle must be implemented in accordance with the Endangered Species Act or the smelt and salmon biological opinions. So that is significant. I think that documents well enough that all of these environmental provisions are complied with. How I would rather spend my time on the floor is talking about the positive things in the bill because there is much more to say. Coal ash State permitting is something that has been desired for a long period of time. It is finally allowed in this bill. SPCC--that is, spill relief--for our Nation's small farmers is included thanks to Senator Fischer. And that provision is not just good for her State, it is certainly good for my State of Oklahoma. To say that this violates environmental law and regulations is simply not the case. Many Senators have contributed to this piece of legislation, and there is literally crucial infrastructure and accomplishments in every State contained in this bill. Let me just repeat--it is very important because there has been a lot of discussion about what has happened in Michigan. If the bill is not passed, Flint, MI, gets nothing. I was going to talk about some of the other provisions in the bill, but since there is some concern expressed by one of the Senators from Washington State, I want to mention--just Washington State; I won't mention anything more about California because Senator Feinstein has already done that. But in Washington State, for the Skokomish River, Mason County, WA, the bill authorizes $20.26 million to remove a levy, which has the economic benefit of restoring 40 miles for salmon habitat and for the fishing industry. So the fishing industry--for those concerned with the salmon, this is a huge thing for them. For Puget Sound, the bill authorizes $461 million to provide refuge habitat for 3 listed species and 10 threatened species, including 5 species of Pacific salmon. The project is part of the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. It is in this bill for Washington State. The Columbia River ecosystem restoration. The bill increases the authorization ceiling for ecosystem restoration studies and projects for the lower Columbia River in Oregon and in Washington State, authorized by section 536 of our WRDA bill that we passed in 2000. Watercraft inspection stations, Columbia River Basin. The bill clarifies that the watercraft inspection stations to protect the Columbia River Basin from invasive species may be located outside the basin if that is necessary to prevent introduction of invasive species. Again, Washington State. Tribal assistance. This bill authorizes relocation assistance to Indian families displaced due to the construction of the Bonneville Dam and requires a study of Indian families displaced due to the construction of the John Day Dam and the development of a plan to provide relocation assistance associated with that dam. Additional measures at donor ports and energy transfer ports. This section permanently extends the authority to provide additional funds for donor ports and energy transfer ports. Harbor deepening. The bill aligns the cost share for construction of harbors with the change in WRDA 2014 modifying the cost-share for maintenance of harbors--a huge thing, and it is certainly of great benefit for the State of Washington. Implementation guidance. The bill requires the Corps to issue guidance to implement section 2107 of WRDA 2014 relating to maintenance of emerging ports and Great Lakes ports. Columbia River ecosystem restoration. The bill increases the authorization ceiling for ecosystem restorations studies and projects for the lower Columbia River in Oregon and Washington, authorized in section 536 of WRDA 2014, the last WRDA that we passed. Watercraft inspection stations, Columbia River Basin. This bill clarifies that the watercraft inspection stations to protect the Columbia River Basin from invasive species may be located outside of the basin if that is necessary to prevent introduction of invasive species. The oyster aquacultural study requires the GAO to study the different regulatory treatment of oyster hatcheries across the Corps districts. Everything I have mentioned was in Washington State. I could go State by State, but there certainly isn't the time. I would remind my colleagues that the next vote that takes place that everyone has been concerned about is going to pass, and it is going to pass to stop us from having to shut down the government. But after that is when we are going to bring up the bill that we have been talking about all day today that the Senator from California was talking about, and it is something that--I know we have only been working on it for about a year, but we have been working on some of the projects in there for as long as 3 years. This is a chance to get it all done. If something happens and we don't do it, none of the stuff we are talking about is going to take place. Certainly all of the efforts that Senator Stabenow, Senator Peters, and I have spoken about in Michigan--the problems they are having up there--that is not going to happen; there is no help for Flint, MI. I have no reason to believe it is not going to pass. I believe it is. But I have to stress the significance of this legislation. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.