Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, some really big things are happening right now that are happening under the radar; people are not aware of them. One of them is the fact that the Obama war on fossil fuels is officially over now and good things are happening.

This coincides with a time when we have a shale revolution. We have a situation where we are actually reviving an industry that had been pushed for the last 8 years. Oil and gas accounts for over 5 percent of the jobs in the entire country and accounts for over $1 trillion in economic impact in the U.S. gross domestic product.

In my State of Oklahoma, the industry directly employs nearly 150,000 people, and each of those jobs support more than two additional jobs in the State. Thanks to the election of President Trump, help has arrived.

There are some very vocal sectors in America that want to put the fossil fuel industry out of business. We know that. They are out there. They are alive and well, and the attacks will keep coming. While most inroads were made toward that goal during the Obama administration, the environmental extremists will continue to use our court system and the media to ensure that the war on fossil fuels continues, putting American jobs and the economy at risk.

Back in Oklahoma--it is kind of funny--I have an established policy for the last 20 years that every year, at the end of every week, I will either--if I don't have to be in Afghanistan or someplace else--I am always back in the State, never here.

I have been in aviation for many years so I get one of my airplanes and travel around the State and talk to people--real people. People don't understand this because you don't get logical questions asked or responded to here in Washington. They will say, for example--and this happened early in the Obama administration. They would come up to me and say: Explain this to me, Senator Inhofe. We have a President who has a war on fossil fuels, trying to do away with fossil fuels. He doesn't like nuclear either. Yet nuclear and fossil fuels, which is oil and gas, account for 89 percent of the energy it takes to run this machine called America. So if he is successful, how do you run the machine called America? The answer is that you can't.

With the election of a Republican-led Congress and a Republican in the White House, we should be working together to address the concerns of the industries that provide cheap, reliable fuel for American energy. Unfortunately, as what always seems to be the case when we are in power, Republicans can't seem to get together and work toward a common goal, dividing themselves over some of the issues. Healthcare is no better example.

But the threat against the industry and fossil fuels should be a priority of all Republicans and Democrats, whether or not they come from a State dependent on these resources for jobs, because cheaper and more reliable energy is an issue that affects all Americans, helping them to get to work, to heat their homes, and to cook their meals. Yet we already have examples of Republicans not working together to defeat threats to our energy sector.

We only had one CRA vote fail, and that was the one on the BLM venting and flaring rule. It was held up by some of the Republicans who want to expand a mandate they already have, and that is the renewable fuels standard. It was ultimately defeated by another Republican. Now, the oil and gas industry considered this to be one of the real key regulations that was imposed by

President Obama and that needed to be released.

If anyone is interested, in my office we have accumulated all 47 of the regulations this administration either is in the process of doing away with or has already done away with, and these are the things putting people out of business.

So some good things are happening right now. We know that programs were created at the time in our history when we were dependent on foreign oil or when our energy production at home was receding, and that all has changed. Some might not be old enough to remember. I am.

Back in the early 1970s, OPEC in the Middle East retaliated against us for helping Israel against Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur invasion by imposing an oil embargo. This resulted in long lines of cars at the pumps and in rationing. It was pretty traumatic. In the late 1970s, unrest in the Middle East again disrupted the oil market, once again causing shortages and prices to skyrocket.

There is the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards program, as we call them. The CAFE standards program was created during this time of uncertainty in the oil and gas market, when we were dependent on oil from the Middle East. But the bleak future we were facing at that time didn't happen. It wasn't the end of the world as they said it was going to be. In fact, just the opposite happened. The United States is no longer dependent on foreign sources for oil and gas and is in the position to export our resources and provide for better security for us here.

I was very proud of the President the other day when he was in Poland and he made a speech with Putin right there. He talked about the fact that we are going to start exporting our oil and gas--and we are already doing it now--to some of these former satellite countries of the Soviet Union and other countries where they want to import from us but Iran and Russia have had a lock on the exports and so they were forced to be dependent on them. That is not the case anymore.

I would say, parenthetically, to anybody who believes this President was trying to cater to Putin at any time, that he stood up and said: We are going to be the ones exporting, instead of Russia, when their economy is dependent upon their exports. That is actually happening right now.

The cost of cars went up, even though that didn't work. The CAFE standards were by government officials who thought they could force the public into smaller cars, more mileage, and all that, but that is not the way the American people responded. The cost of cars did go up $3,800 per vehicle from their standards put together for 2016. This was significant when it happened, but it didn't change the behavior of the American people. So any small benefit of new standards estimated at 0.007 degrees by 2100 is outweighed by the fact that consumers are doing something different than the government predicted--I am happy about that--which always seems to be the case when the government starts messing with industry.

None of this touches the effect the California waiver has on the fuel economy debate and the consumer market. If California and the States that have followed had their way, liquid fuels would be phased out altogether and consumer demand and prices wouldn't really matter.

Another way Congress has tried to manipulate the fuel market when the energy future was uncertain is through the renewable fuels standards. This is not a partisan issue because it is really more of a geographical issue. People up in the core area are very strongly supportive of the renewable fuels standards. Some other people are not. So it is not a partisan thing, as most of the things we talk about on the floor of the Senate are.

In 2005--and then expanded in 2007, despite my best efforts--the RFS was created to address decreased energy production at home and to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. However, with the shale revolution, our dependency on foreign energy stopped. The more we learn about corn ethanol, the more we know RFS has not been the environmental solution as sold to us.

In case we forgot--it has been a while ago--Al Gore was the guy who invented ethanol. This was supposed to solve all the problems out there, until Al Gore realized that the environmental community, which motivated him to get involved with this issue, said: No, that is the worst thing in the world for the environment. So he had to back down.

Land is increasingly set aside for the production of corn to feed the mandate, and the more corn that is diverted to ethanol production, the less there is for our food consumption and for ranchers who need corn to feed their livestock, making the cost of our food rise. That is another major issue nobody talks about anymore.

Fuels with corn ethanol are less efficient than gasoline diesel by 27 percent. So while consumers may pay less at the pump than conventional fuel, they are coming back to the pump more often, and the math works so that it costs them more.

This also translates into more greenhouse gases being released into the atmosphere to make up for the efficiency lost in using corn ethanol. Oklahomans know this and demand for clear gas remains high.

This is very common in Oklahoma. I actually took this picture myself. People know, No. 1, that it is bad for the environment; No. 2, it is not good for mileage; and, No. 3, it destroys small engines. So in Oklahoma, this is what you see in almost every community. They know the demand for clear gas--gas which doesn't have any additives--remains high in my State. Retailers in Oklahoma continue to advertise it.

They also don't like corn ethanol because they understand it is not good for their engines. We heard testimony from people in the small- engine business, such as outboard motors and those things, talking about how they are quite often sued and then have to defend the thing because the damage was actually caused by the ethanol as opposed to the manufacturer.

Ethanol supporters claim the warning labels on the pump are sufficient to alert customers, but studies show consumers make fueling choices by price, and they have ruined boats and small engines, causing manufacturers and retailers to invest in a nationwide campaign to prevent misfueling.

Furthermore, the mandate is not living up to its promises of advancing biofuels. In fact, over the last 5 years, the EPA has had to lower the total renewable volume requirements to amounts below statutory requirements because advanced biofuels have not been developed in the capacity drafters of the RFS had hoped, even with a mandate. To comply with the RFS, we have become reliant on foreign imports of soybeans and ethanol from South America to count toward the RFS--the exact opposite of what the mandate was supposed to prevent in the first place.

Meanwhile, supporters of the RFS want more. They want a waiver for even higher ethanol levels in gas. Currently, gas with 15 percent ethanol or higher can't be sold during the hot summer months because of its negative effect on ambient air quality. Ethanol supporters want a waiver now so that E15 and higher can be sold year round. Right now, it can't be sold during the hot summer months, for obvious reasons. With all the problems with RFS, we should not give them this waiver without addressing the larger issues with the program. Between CAFE and RFS, the fuel industry has had its hands full. But the war is being waged on all fronts, and I will continue to work to make sure that doesn't happen.

There are no guarantees that the next administration after President Trump will not return to the ``regulate to death'' plans of the Obama administration. I am not talking about the war on fossil fuels. We need to work together to address the regulations that we were not able to address with the CRA process. By the way, the CRA process, the Congressional Review Act process, is one of the two ways that you can minimize or eliminate onerous regulations. It has been very effective. The mandate was the only one that has not been successful. All the rest of the CRAs have been successful. We went 20 years, using it effectively once in 20 years, and we have used it 47 times now. So times have changed.

We are going to work with our colleagues to get as much as we can on any legislation that looks like it might be moving both in my committee of jurisdiction and on the Senate floor. Any

regulation that is a threat to the energy sector should be addressed so we don't find ourselves in the situation of hoping for favorable court rulings again, which is what we relied on before.

There are many regulations that threaten the availability of cheaper energy, and I will be pursuing any means available to address them. As for the waters of the United States rule, when we talk to the farmers and the ranchers around the country and ask what the major problems are, they say: It is nothing found in the farm bill; it is the overregulation by the EPA. Which one regulation do they single out as being the most serious one? It is the waters of the United States.

In my State of Oklahoma, the Panhandle is a very arid area. If we change the jurisdiction from the States to the Federal Government, I am sure it will become some type of a serious problem with all of the water that is not out there. We have the waters of the United States, the Clean Power Plan, the EPA, and the BLM methane rules, and fixing compliance issues with the most recent NAAQ standards.

I will also be pursuing ways to amend the RFS and CAFE programs--from rescinding the California waiver that drives CAFE issues and harmonizing the EPA and DOT rulemaking to reforms of the RFS program, including requiring that any E15 or higher blend be tied to the commercial availability of cellulosic ethanol, or requiring that certain criteria be reached before an E15 waiver is triggered.

There are many ways in which I will be looking to address the issues I have outlined here today, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that not only is the environment protected but that the entire fuel industry is, as well, and that we have the available fuel.

The latest battle on fossil fuels was won with the election of President Trump, but the war is still being waged. I will continue to defend that industry and any industry that employs that number of people and provides cheap energy for Americans.

Again, the question that I got back in Oklahoma--where the real people are, I might add--if the Obama administration had been successful--and we are dependent upon the very thing he was trying to do away with for 89 percent of the industry--how do we run the machine called America? The answer is, we can't.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, this is a little out of character. Confession is good for the soul. One of my very favorite--maybe my most favorite--of spectator sports is, of all things, girls' softball.

Now, a lot of people don't even know anything about the sport. It is pretty incredible. I am pleased to tell you that Oklahoma City is the home of a very famous ASA Hall of Fame stadium, which is the world's No. 1 softball field. This is where the Big 12 Softball Championship and the Women's College World Series are held.

This past May, the Sooners won the championship game at the Big 12 softball tournament between Oklahoma and Oklahoma State, which also has a great team, at this impressive stadium. The Sooners won.

Then, on June 6, they became the 2017 Women's College World Series national champions in Oklahoma City.

After facing diversity in the earlier game against North Dakota State in the NCAA regionals, the Sooners proceeded to win 11 consecutive games--think about that, 11 consecutive games--ultimately achieving a 5-to-4 victory over the University of Florida Gators.

In the first game of the championship series, Oklahoma outlasted Florida in a recordbreaking--I was here; we were actually in session at that time--17 innings. It went until 3 o'clock in the morning. Of course, we won. It was the longest game in the history of women's college series of all time.

This win is the women's softball team's second consecutive national championship and the third in the last 5 years. This is a big deal. These girls come from all over the country and end up playing softball there. It is something where they are clearly national champions. It makes me very proud to see that they are doing so well.

I would like to take a moment to congratulate all of the players. Their hard work clearly paid off. It is important to thank the coaches as well. Thank you for your skills, your tenacity, and your dedication, which helped lead these ladies to victory.

Their remarkable head coach, Patty Gasso, has been with OU since 1995, and was inducted into the National Fast Pitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame in 2012. I bet you didn't even know there was such a thing, but there is. She and her staff have worked together over the last few decades to build a legacy that has a strong community following. These women will continue to make Oklahoma proud through their various roles as students, athletes, and leaders.

Just last week, junior pitcher Paige Parker was warming up before she threw the ceremonial first pitch of the game between the Kansas City Royals and the Boston Red Sox. It was during this warmup that the Royals players were able to see firsthand how impressive girls' softball pitchers are. The catcher even missed some of them and almost fell over.

I wish the best of luck to these players and the coaches for next year's softball season. Enjoy your success, and bring home another national championship next year.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the team roster of all the players and coaches, who made this a great championship victory, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for as much time as I may consume.

Mr. President, as we begin the markup--that is what we are going to be starting on right away. We have already had an initial meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee on the National Defense Authorization Act. I want to express my deep concern over the continued malign behavior by the overtly hostile nation of North Korea.

I often talk to people, and they shake their heads in disbelief about a country that is run by a mentally deranged individual who is rapidly developing the capability of hitting the mainland United States with a missile. I think it is important that we immediately get to our Defense authorization bill, so we can start addressing this and many other problems that we have.

It is important to us in the Senate to communicate to the American people the incredibly grave situation we are facing right now in North Korea. The Kim Jong Un regime has expressed a desire to destroy the United States of America. Normally that wouldn't be a concern because he wouldn't have the credibility, but right now we are seeing progress being made in their technology and their ability to actually hit major areas.

In April, North Korea's official newspaper relayed the threat of a preemptive strike to ``completely and immediately wipe out not only U.S. imperialists' invasion forces in South Korea and its surrounding areas but the U.S. mainland and reduce them to ashes.''

That is a threat--a threat that has come directly from the leader of North Korea. This is the most recent in a long line of threats by that individual.

In addition, North Korean leaders constantly threaten our friends and allies in South Korea and Japan. These threats are not just hollow words any longer. North Korea's capabilities are rapidly improving to meet their long-stated intent.

We thought that Kim Jong Il was bad, but in 6 years, his son Kim Jong Un has conducted as many as 75 ballistic missile tests. In comparison, over a 17-year period, his father conducted about 30. In other words, he has done over twice as many in a fraction of the time.

Additionally, Kim Jong Un has sped up North Korea's nuclear program since taking power in 2011. North Korea's nuclear technology is advancing at an alarming rate. For example, the bomb North Korea tested in its most recent test last September was 10 times more powerful than what the regime could have produced in 2006--10 times more.

At the same time, North Korea has actively worked on miniaturizing nuclear weapons so that they can deliver by way of a ballistic missile. Earlier this year, analysts detected activity at a North Korean nuclear test site, indicating another nuclear test may be imminent.

Intelligence and military experts have repeatedly argued that it is prudent to assume that North Korea has successfully miniaturized their nuclear weapons. That means the only technology they need to conduct a nuclear strike on the U.S. mainland--that is us; that is right here-- would be a functional intercontinental ballistic missile, or ICBM.

In January, Kim Jong Un said North Korea is in the ``final stage in preparations.''

Let's make sure we understand what we are talking about. We know that their capability is getting very close to it, and they have already said that they would send something over to the mainland United States.

Unfortunately, when you talk to people in the real world, they can't believe this could be true--that one guy who is mentally deranged could be heading up a country that has the capability of blowing up an American city. Yet we know this is going on right now.

Recently, in the Armed Services Committee--and I was in attendance at that time--the Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lt. Gen. Vincent Stewart, told the Armed Services Committee: ``If left on its current trajectory the [North Korean] regime will ultimately succeed in fielding a nuclear-armed missile capable of threatening the United States homeland.''

That is a direct quote by the guy who knows more about this than anybody else. Lieutenant General Stewart added that ``the North Korean regime is committed and is on a pathway where this capability is inevitable.''

I will say that again. Our intelligence experts assessed that, unchecked, North Korea will inevitably achieve the capability to strike the U.S. homeland with a nuclear missile.

Even without the ICBM capability, the missiles we know they already have can range U.S.--that means it can reach the United States-- military personnel and other citizens in South Korea, Japan, Guam, and many other areas.

North Korea's known missile inventory now includes a missile that North Korea successfully tested for the first time on May 14. That missile represented a major breakthrough in North Korean ballistic missile technology. The reports indicate the missile traveled over 1,300 miles at an altitude and successfully exited and then reentered the Earth's atmosphere--a key requirement for nuclear capable ICBMs.

If fired at its maximum range, the missile could reach Guam. Though the missile itself was not an ICBM, the technological breakthrough demonstrates a significant advancement that North Korea has made in their ballistic missile capability. This is actual. This is happening. This is today. This is reality.

Another significant advancement that occurs to me is the solid- fueled, road-mobile missiles the regime is developing. Kim Jong Un has successfully tested two such missiles already this year--one in February and another last month on May 21.

Solid-fueled missiles mounted on mobile launch vehicles can be prepared ahead of time. They can build up an inventory and come back and use that inventory whenever they desire to do so.

What can we do? It is clear that North Korea does not respond to international pressure. All of these ballistic missile tests violate multiple U.N. resolutions. Yet North Korea carries them out, despite sanctions and international condemnation. The normal type of negotiation doesn't work with those guys. Furthermore, conventional wisdom has led us to believe that China--North Korea's main trade partner in that region--holds significant sway over the regime. That conventional wisdom has been called into question recently. I commend the Trump administration for recognizing this and for working with China on this issue, but we can't assume that China will be able to help us close the deal in a diplomatic way.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to take all appropriate steps to defend ourselves from this threat that exists today. We have to keep in mind that as we formulate this year's National Defense Authorization Act--that is what I am talking about now--we have to do it. For 53 consecutive years, we have passed the Defense authorization bill, and right now there is some doubt as to whether we will get enough cooperation from those in this Chamber to make that happen again.

I remember 4 years ago, when I was ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, we didn't get this done until the latter part of December. If you wait around until the latter part of December and it passes midyear, we will have our soldiers over there not getting what they need to be getting in the way of hazard pay and other things. It would be an absolute disaster. Right now, they are watching us. Our kids are over there watching us now to see what we will do with the most important bill we pass every year.

We are going to get started. I applaud the President for the fiscal year 2018 budget request that calls for increases to defense spending and aims to fill critical readiness gaps. Right now, in Congress, we need to build on that even further.

First, we need to bolster our national ballistic defense capabilities to address the threats we face from North Korea. That is a no-brainer. We all understand that. Since 2006, the Missile Defense Agency budget has fallen 23 percent when adjusted for inflation. While we have taken positive steps in recent years, we need to ensure our last-resort defenses are airtight.

We should heed the recommendations of defense experts like Gen. Lori Robinson, commander of the U.S. Northern Command, who testified in April before our committee. I am quoting her now, Lori Robinson: ``As adversaries continue to pursue credible and advanced capabilities, we, too, must evolve our missile defense capabilities to outpace increasingly complex threats.'' I think that is a recognition by her-- the one who probably knows more about it than anyone else--that we are not keeping pace right now.

Simultaneously, we have to boost our military. Our forces are smaller than the days of the hollow force. I chaired a committee not too long ago that had the Vices of all four services. They all came in. The conclusion was--even though some of them were not old enough to remember, as I remember, the 1980s at the end of the Carter administration, but they made the statement that we are in a situation now that we have never been in before and that we are, in fact, a hollow force, just as hollow as we were back in 1989 after the Carter administration.

We really owe our brave service men and women better. We owe them an obligation. It is our obligation to let them know what we are doing. Our forces are smaller than the days of the hollow force in the 1980s. Our equipment is aging, and our base infrastructure requires critical maintenance and upgrades. We went through 8 years of the Obama administration. We paid our price in not really giving our brave young warriors the equipment they needed. Through this year's NDAA, we ought to prioritize across the board end-strength increases and additional investments in maintenance to fill gaps in existing formations and to get our existing equipment back to par. The first thing that happens when you are on a starvation diet is you let your maintenance and modernization go. We have done that.

I hear people say defense spending is out of control. The truth is, defense spending, as a proportion of total government spending, has steadily decreased since World War II. How many people are aware that in 1964, we spent 52 percent of our total resources on defending America? Today, it is 15 percent. No one seems to care about it because they don't know about it. Nonetheless, that is where we are today.

In the recent years, despite waging multiple wars and facing unparalleled global threats, our spending has decreased to about 15 percent of our total spending. The Chief of Staff of the Army, General Milley, said it best when it comes to funding our military. This is really significant now when people are talking about spending too much. He said:

The only thing more expensive than deterrence, is actually

fighting a war. And the only thing more expensive than

fighting a war, is fighting one and losing one . . . We're

expensive. We recognize that. But the bottom line is, it's an

investment that is worth every nickel.

So we have to immediately make up for the damage done by the years of the dangerous defense cuts and recognize what the government is really supposed to be doing. I refer to that old document nobody reads anymore called the Constitution. You read that, and it tells us what we are supposed to be doing here; No. 1, defending America; No. 2, they called it post roads back then but infrastructure. That is what we are actually supposed to be doing.

The good news is, under the leadership of President Trump, we have already started that process working. The appropriations bill last month stopped the decline in Army strength. Instead of the planned 460,000 Active soldiers, we now have 475,000. We added 1,000 marines, a few hundred airmen. In total, we currently have 24,000 more servicemembers than we would have had under the previous administration.

More good news is that we have exceptional patriots like the airmen at Tinker, Vance, and Altus Air Force Bases and those who are protecting the skies with F-16s out of my city of Tulsa. Soldiers like those in Fort Sill and in Oklahoma's 45th Infantry Brigade, who are right now in Ukraine training our allies there.

People don't know that the policy we are following under this new administration is, we are using our resources to help others train themselves. In the case of Ukraine--what happened in Ukraine should never have happened. Ukraine had this great parliamentary election. I happened to be there at the time, about 4 years ago. For the first time in 96 years, Ukraine doesn't have one Communist in its Parliament. They did that because they love us. They love the West. Consequently, when Putin came in right after that--this is back during the Obama administration--he started killing the Ukrainians, who were seeking their freedom--our best friends over there--and our administration refused to let us even send defensive weapons over there.

We are correcting that. In fact, the bill we are talking about right now, the Defense authorization bill, is one where we are going to be addressing that problem.

I am optimistic we will rise to the occasion and meet the challenge presented by the agnostic North Korean regime and confident President Trump has taken the appropriate steps to address this threat diplomatically. We, in Congress, need to follow his lead to ensure that our men and women in uniform have the resources required to answer the call quickly and effectively. We don't have the luxury of time. Just think of the statement I read a minute ago, where Gen. Vincent Stewart told the Armed Services Committee a week ago: ``If left on its current trajectory the regime will ultimately succeed in fielding a nuclear- armed missile capable of threatening the United States homeland.''

While we have a lot of problems right now on this floor--and we are trying to address these problems--the No. 1 problem is what is happening to our military and the absolute necessity of getting a defense authorization passed very rapidly. We are starting today.

Mr. President, let me just mention one more thing because I think I do have a little bit more time. Earlier this year, several major oil and gas companies announced their support for a carbon tax plan. This is kind of interesting because we have been fighting this battle for a long period of time. You have to keep in mind there are some very large corporations that would inure to benefit from a carbon tax.

The plan they are backing is one put forth by the Climate Leadership Council. This group's plan is labeled as a conservative climate solution that would tax greenhouse gas emissions and return money to the taxpayers as a climate dividend.

It ain't going to happen, folks. You pass a tax, and it is going to cost everyone--at least everyone who uses energy. I don't know of anyone right now in America who doesn't. The heart of the plan is to make energy from fossil fuels more expensive.

One of the things I do every week, I go back to my State of Oklahoma where there are logical people. I talk to them about things you don't hear in Washington; things, for example, back there in the Obama administration. It was in Chaddick, OK. A farmer came up to me and said: Explain this to me, Senator. If right now we have a President who is trying to do away with fossil fuels--that is coal, oil and gas--and he also wants to do away with nuclear, and while we are dependent--in order to run this machine called America, for 89 percent of the energy we use, we are dependent upon fossil fuels and nuclear, and if he is successful, how do you run the machine called America? The answer is, you can't. This fight has been going on for a long period of time. If you drive a car, you use electricity, or heat your home, you will see higher prices at the pump or if you pass one of these carbon taxes. While these are the obvious increases, higher energy costs would be felt across the economy as it becomes more expensive for all industries to operate and transport their wares, raising food prices and the price of consumer goods. In return for paying these higher prices, you get a check or what someone would call free money, but this money isn't really free. The higher costs of energy, food, and goods are paid by the consumer. That is by everyone in America, no exceptions, and then returned to the consumer. Why can't they just avoid the transition and just keep their money in the first place? Well, they can. That is the answer.

Furthermore, if every American gets the same amount of money as this money calls for, is that really equitable? A family who lives in a small apartment, who walks or takes the subway to work or to school and doesn't own a car in New York City would get the same amount of money as the independent long-haul trucker or a farmer in rural Oklahoma who spends a lot of time in his truck and running his tractor and using more energy to run his farm and his home. As unreasonable as it sounds, this is a reality. There are those out there.

The conservative climate solution sounds more like a redistribution from our rural citizens to more urban populations. Usually, we are talking about taxing the rich to pay to the poor. This is something new.

Furthermore, I always find it interesting that the Warren Buffetts of the world want more taxes. They feel comfortable enough in their wealth to ask for more of their money to be taken, knowing that raising taxes is a nonstarter for many of us in Congress. As I pointed out to him, and will point out to the companies that have joined the Climate Leadership Council, you are free to write your check, if you want to do it anyway. If you are so wrapped up in this idea, then you need either to go--or if, for some other reason, you want to pay money to the Treasury, they are open for business and would be glad to take your money. If you feel that strongly, why wait for legislation that would be a nonstarter? If you are a citizen and want to pay for your carbon footprint, the Treasury would be very glad to accept that.

Let's face it. I am not going to support a new tax--what could very well end up a tax, maybe even the largest tax we would have in this country that does not accomplish anything.

Let's keep in mind, if there is somebody out there who it inures to their corporate benefit, or otherwise, to increase their taxes, let them go ahead and send their check to the Treasury. They will be glad to get it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized for such time as I may consume as in morning business.

Mr. President, first of all, let me say that I am really glad the junior Senator from Georgia has taken this on. This is something that some of us who have been around a little bit longer have gone through before.

I think everyone realizes that what was attempted to be done by President Obama was a single-payer system. Ultimately, that is what liberals want. I remember back in the 1990s what was referred to at that time as Hillary healthcare during the Clinton administration. I remember so well the efforts that were taking place.

Sometimes I go back to my State of Oklahoma just to be around logical people, and they will ask the question: If this system is not working in Canada, is not working in Sweden, and is not working in Great Britain, why do they think it will work here? Liberal individuals will never tell you this, but what they are really thinking is this: It would work if I were running the show.

So we are going through a similar thing again, and I am so happy we have leaders, as the occupier of the Chair,

and we have more doctors right now in the Senate. This is the time to make these changes and really accomplish things. But that is not why I am here.

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

Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion in the media over the last couple of weeks about what President Trump is going to do and should do with the Paris climate agreement. We know all about this agreement. It was entered into by President Obama in December of 2015 at the U.N. annual party that they hold, the 21st annual Conference of Parties meeting.

Let me explain what this is. It was 21 years ago they decided--the United Nations had always been quite offended every time something happened that they were doing in the United Nations that was not in the best interest of the United States. Several of us would call and threaten to withhold some of our funds supporting the United Nations. Of course, the United Nations has always wanted to be independent. They wanted to not be accountable to anyone so consequently they put together these parties. The best way for them to do that is if they could somehow be funded independently and not be accountable to the various countries--not just the United States but any of the rest of them.

So they hold this meeting in December of every year, and they hold it in very exotic places. Everybody gets really excited. They have 192 countries come in. What they are trying to do is get them all to limit their CO2 emissions. Of course, they all come in because 99 percent of the 192 countries are ones who want to get money out of this deal. I ran into a friend of mine from Benin, West Africa. This was several years ago. I said: Why are you here? You are not really going to agree with this stuff. He said: No, this is where the money is. This is the biggest party of the year.

One of the worst things that ever happened at their big party was-- they headed to South America someplace, I don't remember where--when they ran out of caviar. They have these big meetings every year.

Well, the last one I went to was December 2009. It was in Copenhagen. You might remember that was just after President Obama was elected. He and his administration were pledging to the 192 countries that we were going to pass a form of cap and trade. Well, they all went to Copenhagen--Nancy Pelosi, Hillary, John Kerry, Barack Obama--they all went there and told them we were going to pass cap and trade here in the United States so they all needed to follow form. This is interesting because of the 192 countries he was talking to, most of them didn't even know our form of government. They didn't know that we had a Senate that had to confirm these things or that we even had a legislature. They assumed that was going to happen.

I remember, right after they left, I went to Copenhagen. I had to go in the morning and get back in time for votes all in 1 day. I did that. At that time, they termed me as the ``one-man truth squad.'' I told them under no circumstances--this is 2009--were we going to pass any kind of cap and trade in this country. I was right. They were shocked over there because they assumed if the President said we are going to do it, that we are going to do it. The legislation was estimated at that time to cost between $300 and $400 billion--that is per year--to implement. It never came to a vote because the Democrats knew they had at that time--keep in mind this is 2009--they had control of the White House, they had control of the House and Senate, and they had, at that time, 60 votes in the Senate, but they couldn't get the votes because it was too expensive.

So many people thought it was the first time we would consider cap and trade, but it wasn't. We had been working on that for years. They first tried it in 2003. In 2003, we had a bill for the U.S. Senate. I remember being down here--because at that time I was chairman of the Subcommittee on the Environment and Public Works. They had that jurisdiction. So I was down here to try to make sure that thing wasn't going to pass. Sure enough, it didn't. We defeated it, 43 to 55. Then the same group tried it again in 2005. At that time, they only got 38 votes, and that failed. Then, in 2008, Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman tried it again. Of course, at that time, it failed again. Now, that is a far cry from the 60 votes necessary in order to get something like that to pass. We have been looking at that with various forms of legislation for quite a number of years.

After suffering those embarrassing defeats in the Senate, President Obama

sought to do by regulation what he couldn't do through legislation. That is how we got the Clean Power Plan. I think it is important to think back where we got to this point. There has also been an implementation cost, by their own admission, some $300 billion a year, and it made it impossible at that time for us in the United States to build a new coal-fired powerplant.

It is interesting. Some people say: Why do you go back so often to Oklahoma? I said: Well, I like to talk to real people. I can remember being at Shattuck, OK. I bet the Chair doesn't know where Shattuck is. It is in Western Oklahoma.

A guy said: Now, explain this to me.

This was actually during the Obama administration.

He said: If we in the United States are dependent upon fossil fuels-- that is, coal, oil and gas, and nuclear--to produce 89 percent of the power it takes to run this machine called America, and if President Obama is successful in doing away with coal, oil and gas, and nuclear, then how do we run this machine called America?

For that reason, the President decided he was going to do this with regulations.

I ask unanimous consent that this list of all of the regulations--47 of them--we have been able to do away with in the first 100 days be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

A few weeks ago, he signed an Executive order instructing the EPA to unwind the United States from this regulation. That is exactly what my friend, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, is working to accomplish right now.

While the President has disavowed the Paris Agreement, he has not pulled out as of this time. He has been kind of busy doing other things.

I understand there are a lot of competing voices on this front. Many people don't believe the Paris Agreement is binding. While that is true, to a certain degree, it is kind of shortsighted.

I am speaking today because I believe the President should make a clean exit from the Paris Agreement and avoid a lot of confusion. There are two key reasons I want to do that.

The first one, reason No. 1, is that if we remain in the agreement, we are putting ourselves at significant litigation risk.

The Paris Agreement commits the United States to lowering its greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent by 2025. This is interesting because in the Paris Agreement that took place, the President at that time, President Obama, was getting just a little bit panicky. He had already gone to seven of these and had been unable to pass any kind of an agreement that would accomplish his goal of putting coal, oil, and gas out of existence. So this agreement that he made, he made unilaterally, saying: I agree on behalf of the United States of America that we will reduce our emissions of CO2 by between 26 and 28 percent by 2025.

Well, we all know that the environmental community wants to do whatever it possibly can to regulate carbon. There is a reason for this. You might wonder why this is. There is a professor named Richard Lindzen. Richard Lindzen is a professor at MIT and is one of the top professors in this discipline. He said: If you control carbon, you control life.

It makes it a bureaucrat's dream. So yes, in fact, that is what he was trying to do. That is all they want. So if we stay in the Paris Agreement, environmentalist groups--radical groups--would be able to sue the EPA to force it to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under section 115 of the Clean Air Act. Section 115 of the Clean Air Act is entitled ``International Air Pollution.'' This section is triggered when a country asserts that our pollution is harming them, establishing an endangerment finding, and when there is a reciprocal agreement between our countries and those countries that have such a regulation.

It is not difficult to imagine that if we remain in the Paris Agreement, the environmentalists, NGOs, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, the Sierra Club, and others, will file lawsuits against the EPA as it takes legal steps to deregulate the Clean Power Plan.

While there has not been an internal endangerment finding, the environmentalists would be working to force the issue. Further, they would make the case that the reciprocal requirements of section 115 of the Clean Air Act are met by the Paris climate agreement. Even though it is not binding at the international level, the environmentalists could, with a sympathetic judge, make a case that the administration has made the reciprocal agreement by staying in Paris. It would sound good. It is not too hard to find a sympathetic judge nowadays. This is something they have been planning to do all along. They built this back door into the agreement as the Obama administration was actually writing it.

You ask, why would certain lawsuits be filed? A former general counsel at the Sierra Club, David Bookbinder, said that section 115 of the Clean Air Act is--these are his words--``the silver bullet de jour of the enviros, and they are dead serious about this,'' meaning that they believe the Paris Agreement clearly states that it meets the reciprocity test established by section 115 of the Clean Air Act.

If you have noticed, the environmental groups have been very silent about whether the administration should stay in the agreement. We all know they want us to stay in the agreement, but why be so quiet at this time? Because we have not heard from them. Well, the reason is, I think the environmental groups who are trying to accomplish this see that there is real progress being made to convince the President to stay in the Paris Agreement, which means they could have their wish of greenhouse gas regulations. If we stay in the agreement, they could sue the EPA and force regulations under section 115. So they have been very quiet. They don't want President Trump to know they will also benefit if we stay in the agreement. Because of this, they are allowing people to believe that nothing will happen by staying in the agreement. I have heard this from Republicans and Democrats.

It really does not make too much difference, because for ratification, the votes are not there, and everybody knows it. In the meantime, you are subject to the lawsuits. So they just don't want us to know it as well. Could it be that a Republican President would give them the tools they need to force greenhouse gas regulations even without meaning to? It is a possibility. This is why the President needs to make a clean exit from the agreement.

If the President stays in the Paris agreement, he will be putting at risk our ability to accomplish his campaign goals; namely, ending the war on fossil fuels and rescinding the Clean Power Plan. He has already taken the Executive steps he needs on this front. The EPA is currently on solid legal footing. But we must not limit the effectiveness of these key steps by remaining in the Paris Agreement.

So that is reason No. 1. Reason No. 1 is that if we remain in the agreement, we are subjecting ourselves to all of the lawsuits that will be out there.

The other reason, the second reason I will mention, is that even if we pull out of the agreement, we will still have a seat at the table.

I have heard the statement quite often, in fact, by some people in the Trump administration--they say: We don't want to pull out of it because we want to maintain a seat at the table. As they have these meetings every December, we want to be there so we can express what America really is planning to do and is not planning to do.

But let's keep in mind that the seat at the table was established way back in 1992. That was when they had the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the UNFCCC. This is the 1992 treaty that supports all the big parties that meet every December that are held in the exotic locations I mentioned. That group was the foundation of the Paris Agreement and the foundation of the Copenhagen discussion in 2009.

Now, 2009 is when they had the event in Copenhagen. That is the one where all the people went and told them that we were going to pass cap and trade, which we were not going to pass cap and trade, and we didn't. Further, it was the foundation of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, which was the first agreement that sought to set binding international greenhouse regulations.

The Senate demonstrated its intent to defeat that with the Byrd-Hagel resolution. Let's remember what that was. The Berg-Hagel resolution--by

Senators Byrd and Hagel--was right here in this Chamber. They said they were going to oppose the ratification of any treaty that does one of two things--either it is harmful economically to the United States of America, or that countries that are developing countries, such as China, are not a part of it.

Well, that was the case. So the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 was a natural follow-on from that decision that was made. So even if President Trump removes the United States as a signatory to the Paris Agreement, we will continue to have a seat at the table and the President will have the ability to negotiate further deals. That is already done. That was the done, and it is inescapable. It was done back in 1992. We have been a party to that protocol. We have been ever since then and we will continue to be regardless of whether the President pulls out of the Paris Agreement.

In the event the President does decide to stay in the Paris Agreement, he will need the Senate for ratification because the Paris Agreement meets seven out of eight criteria established by the State Department to determine what constitutes a treaty. An agreement need meet only one of these, and this meets seven. So it would have to come in for ratification. If the President does not exit, the Paris Agreement will be considered as a treaty.

It is in the best interests of the Nation and the President's agenda to make a clean exit from this agreement. That is why we sent a letter, which was sent out this morning by about 25 Members of the Senate, encouraging the President to pull out of the agreement. It is the best way to get everything he wants: a complete end to the war on fossil fuels--which has been ongoing since the day Barrack Obama went into power--without the risk of any further future litigation mandating that the EPA establish new greenhouse gas regulations, and a decent seat at the table for the United States, which we all agree that we want. If for some reason he decides not to withdraw, he will have to submit it to the Senate as a treaty, and it would be defeated.

Let me mention two other things which I think are important and which I want to include in the Record at this time.

You know, we have been talking about the Paris Agreement. The far left has been trying to get a forum of cap and trade ever since Kyoto in 1997. They have tried to do it through legislation, tried over and over again, as I mentioned. They could not do it, so they tried to do it through regulation.

You might wonder, what was it way back in the beginning--what were the motives for this in the very first place? I carry this. I think it is very important to realize what people were saying about it.

The former Minister of the European Union--her name was Margot Wallstrom. She said: ``Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.''

Then along came Jacques Chirac. He said during a speech at the Hague in November of 2000 that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper once dismissed UN's Kyoto Protocol as a ``socialist scheme.''

Then Christiana Figueres, who was actually at Paris at the time this thing was put together, said that ``the real goal is to change the economic development model for redistribution of wealth among nations.''

Those are some of the original comments people have forgotten about.

The last thing I will mention, because I think it is significant, is that I remember going to Copenhagen. At that time, the person who was the head of the EPA--an appointment by the President at that time--was Lisa Jackson. Lisa Jackson--actually, we became pretty good friends at that time. She had one problem: She had a hard time saying things that were not true. I asked her a question right before we left. I said: I have a feeling that once I leave town, once I go to Copenhagen, you are going to come up with an endangerment finding.

This was live on the record, by the way, in the committee I was chairing. She kind of smiled, so I knew it was true.

I said: Now, if you come up with an endangerment finding, it has to be based on science. What science would you rely on?

She said: Well, on the IPCC.

That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Now, I wouldn't say as luck would have it, but it is kind of coincidental that right after she made that statement was when the big scandal that was referred to as ``Climategate'' came along. They discovered that the scientists who were with IPCC were not getting the results they wanted. So they rigged the science, and they were caught doing it with emails. So there wasn't any question as to what they were trying to do. So that totally diffused the effectiveness and the legitimacy of the IPCC.

In fact, Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph said: ``This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.''

So when people keep saying that science is settled, that is where it all came from--the IPCC.

Clive Crook of the Financial Times said:

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science,

their willingness to go to any length to defend a

preconceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of

intellectual corruption is overpowering.

Well, I assumed at the time that that would end their providing the science and justification for passing what would have been the largest tax increase in the history of this country.

So, anyway, back to the issue here, several of us feel that to avoid all of this from happening, the best way to do it is to have this President, when he gets back from his trip, do what he campaigned on and pull out of the Paris Agreement, and I anticipate that he will do that.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President today I wish pay tribute to a great leader and an exceptional Army officer, MG Laura J. Richardson, the Chief Legislative Liaison for the Office of the Secretary of the Army, as she prepares to leave this position for one of even greater importance.

Major General Richardson has served our Army and our Nation for more than 30 years. She was a true professional--a dedicated soldier, leader, officer, spouse, and mother. Throughout her career, she commanded our great soldiers at many levels, deployed to combat numerous times in defense of our Nation, and was assigned to some of the most critical positions in our military. As the Army's Chief Legislative Liaison, Major General Richardson continues to provide outstanding leadership, advice, and sound professional judgment on numerous critical issues of enduring importance to the Army, Congress, and this Nation.

A native of Colorado, Major General Richardson was commissioned a second lieutenant of aviation upon graduation from Metropolitan State College in Denver. Her first assignment after flight school was in Korea with the 17th Aviation Brigade, where she served as a platoon leader, company executive officer, brigade staff officer, and company commander. She next served at Fort Hood, TX, on the III Corps staff and in the 6th Cavalry Brigade as a company commander and brigade adjutant. In 1999, General Richardson was selected to serve as the military aide to Vice President Al Gore at the White House in Washington, DC. Following that assignment, she moved to Fort Campbell, KY, to serve as the Division Deputy G-3 of the 101st Airborne Division, Air Assault, and later commanded the 5th Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment, including a deployment to Iraq in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Major General Richardson has served in a variety of joint and Army staff positions to include: an assault helicopter battalion operations officer and executive officer; deputy director, then director for the Army's Transformation Office; and the Army's liaison officer to the U.S. Senate. She also served as the garrison commander of Fort McNair and Fort Myer, VA.

Major General Richardson's assignments as a general officer include commanding general of the U.S. Army Operational Test Command, deputy commanding general of the 1st Cavalry Division at Fort Hood, TX, and most recently, deputy chief of staff for communications with Headquarters, International Security Assistance Force, ISAF, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom, Afghanistan.

For the past 3 years, Major General Richardson was the Chief of the U.S. Army Legislative Liaison. During this period of extraordinary change and challenge for the Army, Major General Richardson implemented and fostered improved strategic partnership with Congress. Through her leadership, the Army significantly enhanced relationships with both legislative chambers, improving understanding and broadening congressional support for Army priorities. Major General Richardson managed some of the most complex issues our Army faced through three legislative cycles with unparalleled results, enabling the Army to receive the necessary resources to support combat operations in two theaters of war, sustain the All-Volunteer Force, and improve the quality of life for our soldiers, their families, and our civilians.

On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, I thank Laura, her husband, MG Jim Richardson, and their entire family for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contribution to this great nation. I join my colleagues in wishing her future success as she continues to serve our great Army and Nation.

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the comments made by my colleague from North Carolina. It is even more meaningful to me because all during the time the regulations were coming on, I happened to be the one who was chairing the Environment and Public Works Committee, and we knew what was going to happen.

I am almost speechless when I think about the success. We went 20 years only taking up 1 CRA, and then we end up passing 14 of them--all but 1. That is a huge, successful record. My colleagues understand, this gives us the opportunity for people who are answerable to the public--people who are elected and have to stand for elections--to have a part in what is sometimes considered to be the action of an unelected bureaucrat.

We have had great opportunities here. I think the ``midnight'' regulations--a term that is used quite often--so that a party going out of office, such as President Obama, being very liberal--a very proud liberal, I might add--wanted to get as many of his rules in at the last minute. We were able to come in and pass these in the time required. We were able to pass 14 of these, in addition to the other regulations and other methods of doing regulations, which I want to address a little bit. It is just not something that we really anticipated would happen.

Now, I am particularly proud because mine was the first CRA to be passed in 20 years, and that was the very first one that came from what President Obama wanted having to do with the oil and gas industry, but the fact that nothing passed in that long period of time just shows now that people are recognizing that we who stand for election should be involved in this process of doing away with these regulations.

Now, the rule that I brought to the floor, which was the first one the President signed--we had a great signing ceremony and I enjoyed it very much--was the one that affected the oil and gas industry. It was an SEC ruling of the Obama administration that said that if you are a domestic producer of oil and gas--of course, that is the private sector--you have to release all of the information you are using in producing a bid against maybe another country. To use an example, in China, it is not in the private sector like it is in the United States. Their oil and gas business is in the public sector so they would have a distinct advantage. Quite frankly, it is consistent with what the previous President--President Obama--was doing in his war on fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil, and gas, and he was very proud to be opposed to coal, oil, and gas, and frankly nuclear too.

I have often wondered--I go back to Oklahoma virtually every weekend that I don't have to be in one of the war zones or someplace like that. I go there really for my therapy because they ask questions that make sense. We don't get these questions in Washington. One of them I remember was in Shattuck, OK. When I was there, somebody said: Explain this to me. We have a President who wants to do away with fossil fuels and he wants to do away with nuclear energy. Now, we are dependent upon fossil fuels, coal, oil and gas, and nuclear energy for 89 percent of the power it takes to run this machine called America. If he is successful in doing away with it, how do we run this machine called America?

Well, I am proud to say that the war against fossil fuels is over. The particular CRA I sponsored came out of the Dodd-Frank Act.

By the way, overregulation is overregulation. When I talk to people back in my State of Oklahoma, if they are in

the banking business or the financial services business, they are concerned about the overregulation that comes from Dodd-Frank. If they are farmers, they are concerned about the regulation that would take the jurisdiction of regulating our water resources out of the States and putting it in the Federal Government. So that is what this is all about.

So I will tell you how serious this was. The CRA that I had was so significant that the Federal courts came in, in July of 2013, and said that the SEC made several errors in rushing this regulation through. They actually vacated the rule. That was a major accomplishment. I was very proud that I had the courts on my side, for a change.

Anyway, the SEC finalized the second rule under the authority of Dodd-Frank, section 1504, by making some--without any really substantial changes. Nonetheless, this is the one that he first signed.

So thanks to the Congressional Review Act, oil and gas companies are not at a disadvantage when they are competing with State-owned oil and gas companies such as we have in China.

We passed other critical CRAs because regulations tied the hands of our businesses and took local control away from the States. A lot of people in America--and I think a higher percentage of my people in Oklahoma--are really concerned about Second Amendment rights. Of course, we had one of the regulations that went through--in fact, Second Amendment rights, when we talk about the farmers and the ranchers and not just from my State of Oklahoma--we are a farm State-- but throughout America, they will tell you that there are problems. Their No. 1 concern was--and I asked the Farm Bureau representative. He said the greatest problem facing farmers is not anything that is found in the ag bill, it is the overregulation by the EPA and specifically what they call the WOTUS bill. The WOTUS bill, which is the one I just mentioned, would take the jurisdiction away from the State and give it to the Federal Government.

I have to say this. When you talk about ``liberals,'' that is not a negative term. It is a reality. It is how much power should be in the hands of the Federal bureaucrats as opposed to individuals and the States. So we have a lot of these regulations. One of the things the CRA has done is, it has taken away an excuse that people will use--I am talking about people in this Chamber who are legitimately liberals and believe we should have more control in Washington--it takes the power away from the Federal bureaucrats because what they can do is go ahead and pass the regulations. Then you go back home and when people are yelling and screaming about being overregulated back in their home States, they say: Don't blame me, blame the unelected bureaucrats. A CRA takes away that excuse because it forces them to actually get on record.

So as chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, we were involved with more of these regulations than any other committee because that is what we do for a living there. So I was very happy to see all of the successes we had.

Let me just mention because I don't think it has been mentioned before--and I will submit this for the Record. There are two ways of doing away with these regulations, and one is through Executive orders. I think everybody knows that. But they don't realize what has already been done. I think we have had a total of 30, 31 regulations that have been done away with either through Executive orders or through the Congressional Review Act. Some of the Executive orders, for example, are the WOTUS, the one we have been talking about; clean energy, something which repeals the Clean Power Plan and something which officially ended the war on fossil fuels, I might add; the Executive order on rebuilding the military; the Executive order on the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines--we are all familiar with that and the ongoing debate.

Some of the CRAs really aren't talked about too much, and we are talking about regulations that came from the Obama administration that now have been done away with through use of CRAs--the educational rule mandating Federal standards for evaluating teacher performance; the educational rule establishing a national school board, with an effort to get away from local control of the schools; the Interior rule that blocked Alaska from controlling their own hunting and fishing in that beautiful State; the Social Security rule that put seniors on a gun ban list--Second Amendment rights.

All of these things are very significant, and I am very proud, quite frankly, of this body. With the exception of one, we passed all 14 of the CRAs, and I can't think of any time that has been done in the past. So it is a great thing. It did put the power back in the hands of the people who are elected here, and I am very glad to have been a participant in that.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete list of the Congressional Review Act resolutions passed and the Trump Executive actions be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate:

committee on agriculture, nutrition, and forestry

The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 9:30 a.m., in 328A Russell Senate Office Building, in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Pesticide Registration under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act: Providing Stakeholders with Certainty through the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act.''

committee on armed services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., in open session, to receive testimony on Cyber Policy, Strategy, and Organization.

committee on banking, housing and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``The Status of the Housing Finance System After Nine Years of Conservatorship.''

committee on health, education, labor, and pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 11, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-106.

committee on the judiciary

The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 11, 2017, at 10 a.m., in SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

committee on small business

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate Thursday, May 11, 2017 at 10:30 a.m. in 428A Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nomination of Althea H. Coetzee to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business Administration.''

committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2017 from 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold an open hearing entitled ``Worldwide Threats.''

committee on intelligence

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the 115th Congress of the U.S. Senate on Thursday, May 11, 2017 from 1:30 p.m., in room SH-219 of the Senate Hart Office Building to hold a closed hearing.

Mr. President, I would like to recognize Thursday, May 4, as Waste Management National Career Day and share with you the importance of hiring and promoting women in nontraditional female positions as drivers and technicians. I believe it is important that we support and encourage women to pursue these career opportunities that have been historically populated by men.

Women comprise only 2 percent of current drivers and technicians. Waste Management National Career Day will provide an opportunity to share stories of women who have held these positions successfully and moved up into management.

I support this initiative because I believe, as we continue to highlight economic opportunities for women, it is imperative that the private sector develop platforms where women can learn about careers they normally would not consider. This national career day is an excellent example of waste management being proactive in creating ways to increase the number of women in these types of careers across the country.

Without a doubt, investment in women in nontraditional careers brings about significant returns. Women contribute every day to our skillful, effective, and talented workforce. I commend waste management for building a platform where you can increase hiring of females as drivers, technician, frontline management, and give them opportunity for advancement.

Mr. President, small businesses play an integral role in Oklahoma's economy. They consist of over 52 percent of all employees in Oklahoma. Additionally, within Oklahoma, over 84 percent of all exports come from small businesses. Today I have the distinct honor of recognizing one of the many successful small businesses in my home State of Oklahoma for National Small Business Week. While there are many businesses worthy of recognition, I am particularly proud of HydroHoist.

For over 53 years, HydroHoist has been not only a leader but an originator and industry innovator of the market for boat lifts, personal watercraft--PWC--ports, and boat protection packages. Their products range from 900-pound drive-on docking platforms for PWCs, to lifts with the holding capacity for 130,000 pound watercraft. HydroHoist launched half a century ago by an Oklahoma marina owner in Grand Lake, OK. By 1971, the company moved into an old World War II munitions plant in Claremore, OK, where it is still located today. HydroHoist's technology revolutionized the boating industry, and remarkably, some of these original hoists are still in use today. HydroHoist has expanded far beyond America's borders to international waters, too.

I want to congratulate and thank president and CEO Mick Webber of HydroHoist for his outstanding and devoted work in creating a shining business model with over 4 distribution warehouses and over 600 dealers throughout the world. Mr. Webber's dedication to making these products in America should not only make Oklahomans proud, but all Americans. HydroHoist's success should be an example for all businesses, and I am proud to recognize their hard work and dedication.