Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased the U.S. Senate voted favorably to add Montenegro as a permanent member to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, sending a strong signal of transatlantic unity. NATO plays a vital role in maintaining security and stability throughout Europe, and including Montenegro in this strategic alliance will strengthen NATO and encourage stability within the region.

Montenegro is a growing democracy that has repeatedly proven itself to be a valuable ally since joining NATO's Partnership for Peace Program in 2006. They are partnered with our Maine National Guard, and have been a strong ally in the fight in Afghanistan since 2010. Having visited Montenegro, I can say, without a doubt, that it has demonstrated a commitment to NATO, the United States, and regional stability. This vote sends clear message of support to our friends in Montenegro. It also sends a strong message to NATO and gives notice that the United States will stand up for Western democracies, despite continued pressure from the Kremlin. We must deter Russia's destabilizing actions in the region, including Moscow's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and its continued support for rebels in eastern Ukraine. Putin is learning lessons from these examples and will continue his quest to expand his influence as far as the world community will allow. This aggression by the Russian Federation undermines peace and stability not only in the Balkan region, but also in all of Europe, which constitutes a direct threat to U.S. security interests.

Montenegro's accession to NATO is in the best interest of the United States, NATO, and peace and stability in Europe. This vote by the U.S. Senate sends a clear message of our commitment to NATO, to the people of Montenegro, and to improving stability in the Balkan region. I look forward to Montenegro joining NATO as a full member.

Mr. President, when we lost the Honorable Justice Antonin Scalia, we were all saddened, as he was such a legend on the Court, and I am very proud that President Trump nominated a successor who is worthy of fulfilling his shoes.

Judge Gorsuch has garnered respect and approval from people across the legal community, and he has unrivaled bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that the Democrats have tried to block his nomination. It is not going to work, but they have tried.

Recently, I had the honor of meeting Judge Gorsuch. It is kind of interesting because I was not on his list to visit. In fact, I had even said: Don't waste your time on me, as I know your credentials and I am going to support you anyway, and I am not on the appropriate committees that would pass judgment. Yet he did call, and we met. I will tell you that you have to meet and talk to the guy in person to know what kind of an individual he really is.

Of course, being from Oklahoma, I am sensitive to the fact that he is the son of the West. In fact, none of our Justices up there, with the exception of California, are from what we would call the Western United States--the area where people need to be properly represented.

As a judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, he has heard from Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and my State of Oklahoma. He knows the issues of the Western States and what we are facing, and he has expertise to deal with them. He has handled with a lot of care and fairness the issues that have come before him. Of course, we know this because Oklahoma is in the Tenth Circuit.

His reputation is such that, regardless of party affiliation, countless groups, organizations, and individuals have come out in support of Judge Gorsuch, including Neal Katyal. Neal Katyal was the Acting Solicitor General in President Obama's Cabinet, so he was a Cabinet member of President Obama's. He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Keep in mind, when you listen to this--this is a quote from an op-ed piece in the New York Times, and one of the individuals from the administration of President Obama said this: ``His years on the bench reveal a commitment to judicial independence--a record that should give the American people confidence that he will not compromise principle to favor the President who appointed him.''

That comes from an Obama appointee.

Not only is he well liked, but he also has an impressive resume, serving as law clerk to two different Supreme Court Justices. He attended Columbia, Harvard, Oxford, and it doesn't get any better than that. It is clear he has the qualifications, and as recently as the last administration, that was really all you needed to be confirmed to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

What the Democrats have done to block his nomination has never been done before. This is significant. People don't realize--people who are maybe critical of some of the procedures that were taking place, they forget the fact that there has never been, in the history of America, a successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nomination--there has never been. This will be the first time this happened.

I support the majority leader in changing the rules in the face of this unprecedented action by a minority party. There is really no reason for their filibuster of this highly qualified individual, other than partisanship and catering to their liberal base. Changing the rules for Supreme Court nominations had to be done, and if the situation were reversed, the Democrats would have done the same thing in a heartbeat, as we saw in 2013 when they did the same thing.

Judge Gorsuch deserves to be on the Supreme Court. He does not deserve to be blocked because people are upset that we observed the Biden rule; that is, not providing for any action on a nominee for a Supreme Court vacancy once the election season is underway--and they lost the election.

Now, that is Joe Biden, not Jim Inhofe.

In addition to his impeccable job and experience and educational background, he is perhaps best known for his defense of religious liberty, including a role in the dispute during the Obama administration that required employers to provide abortion-inducing drugs to their employees as part of their health insurance. One of these employers was Hobby Lobby.

Everyone knows who Hobby Lobby is, but not everyone knew them back when I knew them. I knew them back in the 1970s, when the Green family, who started Hobby Lobby, were actually operating out of their garage, making picture frames, and look at them today. I have known them for a long time. They started out their whole business with a $600 loan. Now they have over 700 stores across the United States and are the largest privately owned arts and crafts store in the world.

Judge Gorsuch and the Supreme Court agreed with Hobby Lobby and upheld their religious liberty rights. I am going to read to my colleagues his concurring opinion. It is very profound. Judge Gorsuch wrote, after they made the determination that Hobby Lobby did not have to give these drugs to their employees:

It is not for secular courts to rewrite the religious

complaint of a faithful adherent, or to decide whether a

religious teaching about complicity imposes ``too much''

moral disapproval on those only ``indirectly'' assisting

wrongful conduct. Whether an act of complicity is or isn't

``too attenuated'' from the underlying wrong is sometimes

itself a matter of faith we must respect the faith.

Now, that is what he wrote in Hobby Lobby.

In a very similar situation around the same timeframe, there was a case that is known now to be the Little Sisters of the Poor. He joined in an opinion defending the rights of nuns not to be forced to pay for abortion-inducing drugs in their healthcare plans. This is another profound statement he made. He said: ``When a law demands that a person do something the person considers sinful, and the penalty for refusal is a large financial penalty, then the law imposes a substantial burden on that person's free exercise of religion.''

It is not just petitioners of the Christian faith whom Judge Gorsuch has sided with. He upheld the religious beliefs of a Native American prisoner and of a Muslim prisoner who found their ability to practice their faith restricted in one manner or another.

He comes to his decision not because he is seeking some predetermined outcome; he comes to his decisions because that is where the facts of the law and the Constitution lead him.

For example, in the Lynch case--another Oklahoma case--Gorsuch referred to Chevron deference as ``a judge-made doctrine for the abdication of the judicial duty.''

Chevron deference is the judicial rule that requires judges to defer to an agency's interpretation--we are talking about a bureaucracy--an agency's interpretation of the law if the law is considered ambiguous or unclear and if the agency's interpretation is reasonable. This defense to the agency gives them a lot of authority, a lot of power. Moreover, it can provide a lot of uncertainty to the regulated community.

As Judge Gorsuch wrote, Chevron deference allows agencies to ``reverse its current view 180 degrees any time based merely on the shift of political winds and still prevail [in court].''

I know a little bit about this. I spent a lot of years being the chairman of a committee called the Environment and Public Works Committee. During the Obama years, we had a bureaucracy that was trying to change the law instead of following the law. It was exactly what Judge Gorsuch was talking about in this case when he talked about the Chevron deference, giving deference to a bureaucracy. You can imagine being in business, especially a heavily regulated one, that has to worry that every 4 to 8 years the rules might change then and how do you plan to make your plans.

I think Gorsuch's opinion on Chevron deference is an important debate to have. Do we, as a coequal branch of government, continue to give up our powers to the administrative state or do we take our power back and write laws as they should be implemented? Furthermore, does the judicial branch, as a coequal branch of government, continue to give up their power of interpretation to the administrative state?

These are important, fundamental questions that should be addressed, and I am glad the Gorsuch nomination has brought these cases to light.

Although Judge Gorsuch was nominated by a Republican President, this doesn't mean my colleagues on the other side of the aisle should have any concern about Judge Gorsuch's decisionmaking ability. This is important to point out because being a judge is not about making decisions that are in the best interests of any political party but really about making decisions based on facts and the law and the Constitution without bias.

During his confirmation, Judge Gorsuch stated his judicial philosophy, saying:

I decide cases . . . I listen to the arguments made. I read

the briefs that are put to me. I listen to my colleagues

carefully and I listen to the lawyers in the well . . .

keeping an open mind through the entire process as best I

humanly can and I leave all the other stuff at home. And I

make a decision based on the facts and the law.

Who can argue with that? He has proven over a period of time that he will do that.

Through the whole debate, it has become evident that the Democrats were asking him to rule in favor of causes and not to follow the law, which is what a judge does and should do.

Regarding the roles and balance of our government, Gorsuch is what a judge should be. He believes Congress should write the laws, the executive branch is to carry them out, and the judicial branch is to interpret the laws. The confirmation of Judge Gorsuch will shape our Nation for generations to come, and all of us will be able to benefit from his wise decisions.

I am looking forward to confirming Judge Neil Gorsuch. It is going to happen tomorrow, and then all of this will be over. I am proud to give him my vote. Justice will be well served as such.

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the remarks of the Senator from Texas and the Senator from Florida, I be recognized for such time as I may consume.

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. President, I think tomorrow President Trump is going--or at least is planning--to sign an Executive order rolling back the Obama Clean Power Plan. I will have a lot to say about that, but I think it is important at an appropriate time to discuss the history of this issue. It has been going on a long time.

At the start of the 114th Congress, the Senate voted 98 to 1 in support of the Inhofe-Whitehouse amendment, stating that climate change is real and not a hoax. That is something we can actually agree on; that climate has been changing since the beginning of time, and there is all the archeological evidence, there is the Scriptural evidence, the historic evidence. Climate has been changing and will continue to change.

The hoax is that some on the far left believe man controls changes in the climate. We have endured 8 years of an administration that buys into the alarmist mentality that the world is coming to an end, and it is due to manmade gases. That is what the hoax is. Even though individuals--occasionally you will find some scientists who agree with this, but they will say that there may be some contribution, but it is minimal. It is not even measurable.

The Obama administration has used climate change as justification for taking unauthorized actions, such as the so-called Clean Power Plan. Every administrative entity under Obama was forced to embrace his climate change agenda as a top priority and used it as a convenient sounding board.

We have seen agencies such as the Department of Defense divert resources away from their core responsibilities and instead spend them on finding ways to justify statements from the President that climate change is the greatest threat, a greater threat than terrorism.

So other agencies have spared no taxpayer expense in supporting the outcome-driven science in an attempt to bolster their claims. In fact, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the Obama administration spent $120 billion on climate change issues. That is a total waste of money. I don't think anyone can tell me what that $120 billion was spent for. It was not authorized, it was not appropriated, but it was spent.

This comes from the Congressional Research Service. So this is a total waste of money, money needed to defend America. Despite the administration's efforts, as research and data around climate change continue to improve, the results do not support their claims but instead call them into question. This is especially true for all of the ``hottest month'' or ``hottest season'' or ``hottest year'' in history. This is something that is often claimed by those who are reading the script and trying to make those claims.

So 2014 was previously the warmest year on record, until a reporter pressed NOAA and NASA on the claim and the agencies were forced to admit they were only 38 percent sure that claim was accurate. A December 2015 study from the American Geophysical Union concluded that after analyzing over 1,200 ground-based weather stations: ``The warmest-ever claims by government scientists are inflated due to compromised U.S. temperature stations impacted by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioning exhaust.''

Because of NOAA's methods, they failed to account for these factors. Additionally, surface thermometers continue to be at odds with satellite data, which shows essentially no warming for the past 18 years, continuing the hiatus the Economist magazine originally wrote about in 2013.

In fact, just a few weeks ago, a whistleblower alleged that a June 2015 NOAA report manipulated data in an attempt to discredit this 18- year pause. Now, the 18-year pause has been agreed to. People understand, this is what they call the hiatus. This is a time when temperature has not changed, but they have done this to influence the public debate surrounding the Clean Power Plan and the Paris climate conference. Conveniently, the computer with the data suffered a complete failure and none of the data was saved.

It is not just the inflated temperature claims that can be called into question. A growing body of scientific study suggests variations in solar radiation and natural climate variability have a leading role in climate change. That is a novel idea, that the Sun has something to do with warming. A number of the incident studies assessing the impact of clouds have even suggested that water vapor feedback is entirely canceled out by cloud processes, as global data shows no increase in the number or the intensity of hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts or floods, in spite of what they say on the Senate floor.

Even the IPCC's 2013 report concluded that the current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century. No robust trends in the annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes--major hurricane count--have been identified in the past 100 years in the North Atlantic Basin, but we still hear it over and over again.

When it comes to droughts, the IPCC report indicated that previous conclusions regarding global increase trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated.

The increasing observations from scientist Craig Idso suggests a much reduced and practically harmless climate response to the increased amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Further, there are benefits from the increase in carbon that have led to a greening of the planet and contributed to increased agricultural productivity. Now, this shows that the progression that has taken place--the green parts are the part where they have an increased amount of CO2 activity.

The trend is in the annual gross productivity per decade by percentage. This is from 1982 to 2011. So you can see the great benefits. In fact, many people still remind us, over and over again, that CO2 is actually a fertilizer. It helps things grow. But these points were kept out of the Obama administration's press releases, and the media has been more than willing to go along.

None of this is surprising. As I have given a lot of speeches on climate change, my message tends to be one that the alarmists on the far left do not want to hear and do not want to believe, but they have been proven wrong time and time again.

Despite millions of dollars of the Tom Steyers of the world, Americans do care about climate change, but it is not high on their list. Right now, which I will state in just a moment, some of the polling activity that has taken place has surprised a lot of people. This is Tom Steyer. We keep hearing about the Koch brothers and other people who are putting money in the campaign, but Tom Steyer is the one who has said--that was his statement--that prior to the 2014 races, he was going to put $100 million in there to elect people to promote such things as Obama's plan.

The Environment and Public Works Committee last Congress--and this is when I chaired that committee--held 10 hearings assessing the President's climate agenda, where we heard from a diverse group of expert witnesses who testified to the enormous costs, especially for low-income minority communities, the economic consequences, the legal vulnerabilities, and the miniscule environmental impacts. We had the president of the Black Chamber of Commerce, Harry Alford, come to a hearing. He was the one who talked about how disproportionate the harm is that is done to poor people. He talked about the Blacks and the Hispanics who are at risk. I will elaborate on that in just a moment.

Taking committee action is a further step that Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress rejected Obama's and the radical left's key climate regulations. Then, in February of last year, the U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on the so-called Clean Power Plan because they too had significant legal questions surrounding the validity of this.

Well, needless to say, there is a well-documented, substantive rejection to Obama's climate actions across the institution designed to keep the executive branch in check.

I have not attended one of the United Nation's climate conferences since 2009, when I was kind of a one-man truth squad in Copenhagen. Let me mention what this is. The United Nations, they are the ones that started the whole thing in the very beginning in talking about global warming, talking about all the problems that were out there. We have a pretty documented case. In fact, there is a book that was written--I will not mention the name of the book--that comes to the conclusion that the United Nations was right in the middle of this whole discussion as far back as 1972. So what the United Nations does is every year they have a big party. This is the big party of the year. It is in December. They have had 21 in 21 consecutive years.

What they do is invite everybody to come in who says that we will voluntarily reduce targets for CO2 emissions. Of course, most of them who come in are coming in to get some of the billions of dollars they say they are going to be distributing. This is really interesting because these parties--I can remember one time I was talking to someone I know from Benin in West Africa. In fact, the Chair knows this individual too. I saw him at one of these meetings. I said: Now, you don't go along with all of this.

He said: No, but this is the biggest party of the year.

So they have these every year. That is what I think is important for people to understand. Anyway, I hadn't gone to any of these since the big event in Copenhagen, but the message I carried to the international bureaucrats then is exactly what happened: Congress did not then and does not now support the radical climate change actions, and the U.S. role in any associated international agreement will be limited accordingly.

The outlook for environmental activists and climate change alarmists is grim. With the significant losses in the White House, the Congress, the Supreme Court, and a persistently skeptical public, their political leverage and relevance has dwindled.

For the past 8 years, the Obama administration and the American economy have suffered under the effects of the climate agenda. That era is over, and President Trump is already delivering on his campaign promises.

Just a few weeks ago, I was at the White House when President Trump signed an Executive order instructing the EPA to roll back the waters of the United States rule. This is the rule that would have allowed the EPA to regulate waters in the United States. I think most people know this has always been regulated by the States, but the true liberals, they want to have regulation taking place not by the States but in Washington.

A guy named Tom Buchanan is the Oklahoma Farm Bureau chairman. He was talking about all the problems farmers have throughout America, farmers and ranchers. The biggest problem they have is overregulation by the EPA. Do you know what he singled out as being the most onerous of all of these regulations? It was the regulation on water. Of course, I was in there when the President did away with that particular rule.

As I previously mentioned, President Trump has also committed to rolling back the Clean Power Plan and its $300 billion pricetag. This rule would lead to dramatic increases in energy prices and reduce the reliability of the grid. These two rules are examples of major expansions of Federal power and a departure from the core functions and responsibilities provided by Congress to the EPA.

The steps taken by the Trump administration will return the rules of those agencies to their statutory intent. We have seen great successes in our air and water quality based on the EPA operating within its statutory limits. I can remember the 1990 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Right now, our pollution has dramatically dropped down. This is at a time when vehicle miles have actually doubled. So we are doing some things that are successful, and I look forward to continuing that success.

That is the end of my prepared remarks. I want to visit just a little bit about what is going on and what we have been doing over the last quite a few years now. I think it is important. People ask me: What are the motives of those individuals who are promoting all of these regulations that are on greenhouse gases? There has to be a motive for that.

I suggest, and this will surprise a lot of people, you go back originally--and I can remember when Koyoto first came out. Koyoto was the first regulation--they tried to get all the countries to join in. In fact, that was at a time when Clinton was President of the United States, and they were trying anxiously to get this thing--to join in the Koyoto treaty.

The ones who originally were involved in it--and I could go back to people who have forgotten about this. The former European Union Minister of the Environment, Margot Wallstrom, said: ``Kyoto is about the economy, about leveling the playing field for big business worldwide.''

Then the French weighed in; that was President Jacques Chirac. He said during his speech at the Hague in November of 2000 that Kyoto represents ``the first component of an authentic global governance.''

You know, it hadn't really changed that much. Christiana Figueres was the one in charge of the Paris convention that took place where they were talking about the great successes they had there, and she said the real goal was ``to change the economic development model''--in other words, redistribute wealth among the nations.

So let's keep in mind that is what the original motivation was.

Then the United Nations weighed in. This goes all the way back to 1972. In 1972, the United Nations held a conference on human environment in Stockholm, Sweden. Fifteen years later, in 1987, the U.N. published the report ``Sustainable development: Our Common Future.''

``Sustainable development'' is a word that they changed--a phrase, because it is easier to sell to the public. That was 1987, and then you go forward to 1992 and the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. They announced their intention to pursue sustainable development through the Kyoto Protocol.

It is kind of interesting because Reuters wrote an article in 2012 that said:

The ``sustainable'' branding for this year's summit, rather

than climate, is by design, said Ambassador Andre Correa do

Lagos, who headed Brazil's delegation to the U.N. climate

talks in Durban and will be a chief negotiator for Brazil in

Rio.

That is behind us now, but this is an article that came out in 2012.

Sustainable development is an easier sell globally than

climate change, even though sustainable development is a way

of tackling global warming and other environmental issues, he

said.

He said the end goal is not about the environment but about the redistribution of wealth.

Again, if anyone doubts that he was accurate in that statement, the Secretary General of the United Nations at that time was Ban Ki-moon, and he proposed how the challenges must be addressed. In talking about what they were going to do at these annual meetings, he said:

More than $2.1 trillion a year in wealth transfers from

rich countries to poorer ones, in the name of fostering

``green infrastructure,'' ``climate adaptation'' and other

``green economy'' measures.

So there again, after all these years, it is still about the same thing.

Now we go into more science and the different weather events. I notice when people come to the floor and they talk about all the bad weather and the hurricanes and the tornadoes and the fires and that all that is as a result of these events, I would like to remind people that George Mason University reported that 63 percent of the weathercasters believe that any global warming that occurs is a result of natural variation and not human activities.

Here is another one too. The Democrats will like this because Dr. Martin Hertzberg was a lifelong liberal Democrat, a retired Navy meteorologist with a Ph.D. in physical chemistry. He also declared his dissent of warming fears in 2008. This is a quote from this guy. He said:

As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the

constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-

trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to

science.

The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data!

All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally

out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be

false.

That is coming from a very liberal Democrat.

So you start looking at some of the things they say are linked to CO2. NOAA, the scientists, rejected the global warming link to tornado. NOAA said that no specific consensus or connection between global warming and tornadic activity exists.

According to NOAA, hurricanes have been in decline in the

United States since the beginning of records in the 19th

century. The worst decade for major . . . hurricanes was in

the 1940s.

Journal of Geographical Research: Since 2006, global tropical cyclone energy has decreased dramatically to the lowest levels since the 1970s. Global frequency of tropical cyclones has reached a historic low.

On droughts, the same thing: Severe droughts in 1934 covered 80 percent of the country, while the one they talk about in 2011--it was just 25 percent.

On sea level, the Journal of Geographical Research: There is no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise over the past 100 years.

Again, these are the people who know, and we are talking about in this case the Journal of Geographical Research.

So enough of that. That is something that is a fact in terms of the weather events.

The other thing I want to mention here, going back to my notes on Antarctica, this is kind of interesting because in September, according to NASA and the data on the National Snow and Ice Data Center website, Antarctic ice hit a new record high in recorded history as it has increased to more than 19.4 million square kilometers. That was happening in terms of the data center information.

In January of 2010, Time magazine talked about the Himalayas melting. I remember people on the floor of this Senate standing up and talking about how the Himalayas are going to melt because of global warming. The article in Time magazine said: ``Himalayan Melting: How a Climate Panel Got It Wrong.''

Glaciergate is a black eye for the IPCC and the climate science community as a whole.

Sometimes some humorous things do happen. They were trying to build their case back in 2013. This was a research expedition to gauge the effect of climate on the Antarctic. It began actually on December 24. There was a Russian ship carrying climate scientists, journalists, tourists, and crew members for the expedition until it became trapped in deep ice up to 10 feet thick. Now, here they were going up there to show that things were warming in Antarctica. The whole crowd was wanting this to happen. They got stuck in ice. Well, they were stuck there for 6 days. Then an Australia icebreaker was sent to rescue the ship, but efforts were suspended due to bad weather. On January 2, they were still there. A Chinese icebreaker sent out a helicopter and airlifted the 52 passengers from the Russian ship to safety on an Australian icebreaker. The Chinese vessel was also stuck in the ice, along with the Russian vessel. There were 22 Russian crewmembers onboard the Russian ship, and an unreported number of crewmembers remained on the Chinese ship. Finally, the U.S. Coast Guard came along, and they were able to get in there and pull them out. The ship was called Polar Star.

I remember when that happened because they were going there with the express purpose of explaining to the world the problems they have in the Antarctic.

OK. Let's talk about bears. You don't get people talking about this without dancing out the polar bears and talking about what is happening to polar bears.

It is kind of interesting because when we look at the bear populations, they say that in the Davis Strait, they have flourished despite the shrinking Arctic Sea ice since the 1970s. In fact, in 2007 they escalated up to 2,158 bears, and they only had 1,400 in 1993. Another way of looking at it is, when Al Gore was born, there were 5,000 polar bears. In 2005, that number grew to 22,000. Today, there are 30,000 polar bears. So don't worry about the polar bears. If there is a serious problem there, it is because of overpopulation. But it looks so good. It is such good theater to dance out the polar bears and say the polar bears are all going to disappear.

When Climategate happened, I was convinced that this whole issue was over.

I can remember when we had Lisa Jackson before the committee that I chaired. This was actually in 2009. In 2009, we had sent over all of these people to tell the 192 people at the U.N. meeting in Copenhagen that the world was coming to an end, that they needed to all join in and sign an agreement on what they were going to do about CO2. So the day before I left for Copenhagen, Lisa Jackson happened to be in our committee. On tape, with live TV, I asked the question--I said: Well, Madam Administrator, I am going to leave town. I have a feeling that when I leave town, you will have an endangerment finding. For you to get the authority to do something about global warming, you have to have an endangerment finding. An endangerment finding has to be based on science. What science are you going to use?

She said: Well, the IPCC.

That is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the United Nations. They set it up for that purpose.

So as luck would have it, it happened in a matter of days after that, after she said everything is put on the science of the IPCC, the worst scandal--some people say the greatest scientific scandal in history-- took place. It took place at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit located in the UK. It revealed the scientific fraud. They have tapes and emails of individuals who were saying: We are going to have to rig this in order to come up with some facts to show that there is warming taking place.

These were the scientists of the IPCC. It was such a scandal that one of the UN scientists resigned, and he said: The result is not scientific.

Here is a good one. Clive Cooke of the Financial Times said:

The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of science,

their willingness to go to any lengths to defend a

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

intellectual corruption is overpowering.

Then we had Christopher Booker of the UK Telegraph say: ``This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation.''

So I had thought that since everything was based on that particular science, that would do it in, but it didn't happen.

If you look at all the damage that has been done in the last 8 years by the concentration of all these issues, the defense is one that took the biggest hit. A lot of people don't really believe or don't understand or don't appreciate what has happened to the defense during the time Obama was President. In fact, we have been watching very carefully what our new President is going to do to try to undo the damage--what I call the disarming of America--the damage that was done to our military.

They will say: Well, wait a minute, the Obama budget for the military was the same as the budget was before that, so it isn't any great reduction.

The difference is, they changed the function of the military. How many people are aware that despite all of the problems, they wasted money on the Green Fleet. Remember the Green Fleet? They were actually paying $59 a gallon for biofuel to try to convince

people that we could use the military to experiment for other more pleasing sources. Twelve million dollars for operation and maintenance to exercise painting ships, printing hats, and transforming fuel to show off the Green Fleet at the foreign military show, and $3.7 billion in solar panels and wind power. Why should the military be paying that? We have a Department of Energy. As I read the function of Energy, that is what they are supposed to be doing.

Then we have Tom Steyer. The reason I bring this up is because we keep hearing about the Koch brothers. And yes, the Koch brothers are in production. Their job is to try to find energy to run this machine called America, and they have done a very good job of it. But they get criticized all the time. So I think it is important that people realize that there are a lot of liberal billionaires who have made pledges. In this case, this individual, Tom Steyer--I am sure he is a fine guy. He actually made a commitment of $10 million personally to try to promote the message that Obama had. Here is something interesting that we just found out or I just discovered: Even though this man is trying to kill fossil fuels, he made his money in fossil fuels. Since 2003, Steyer's hedge fund, Farallon Capital Management, has played a pivotal role in financing the tremendous restructuring and growth in thermal coal production in Jakarta and Sydney. All of this took place under Mr. Steyer's tenure as founder and senior partner of Farallon. The coal mines that Mr. Steyer has funded through Farallon produce an amount of CO2 each year that is equivalent to about 28 percent of the amount of CO2 produced in the United States each year by burning coal for electricity generation. So it is worthwhile to note that he now is putting huge investments out to defeat the very people who were the source of his wealth.

The other question I get quite often is, Why aren't more people talking about this? I have made an accumulation of various threats. There are two groups of people out there. We have those who are for the whole program that President Obama had, and they are the ones who are questioning and talking about the various science, and then we have threats coming from people such as James Hansen, who said that these are ``high crimes against humanity.''

Robert Kennedy, Jr., said: ``This is treason and we need to start treating [people] as traitors.''

Barone: ``The warmists have `a desire to kill heretics'--Calls for capital punishment for `global warming deniers.' ''

So it is not fun, and there are a lot of threats out there. If they don't have logic on their side and don't have science on their side, then the threats are what people use.

We talked about cap-and-trade legislation. They tried for a long period of time to get legislation through, and when that didn't work, we might remember the first bills that were introduced were the McCain- Lieberman bills in 2003, 2005, and 2007. The first of those bills was a cap-and-trade bill that was defeated in this Chamber by 43 to 55. Two years later, they tried it again, and it was defeated by 38 to 60. Each year, the margin went up. President Obama came along and decided: Well, if we can't pass this stuff through legislation, let's do it by regulation. So we had cap-and-trade regulation.

I have already talked about going to Copenhagen after Obama, Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, and John Kerry had gone there to a big United Nations party in 2009 and went with the idea of convincing everyone that we were going to pass legislation over here, and, of course, we didn't do it.

In 2010, Japan under no uncertain terms refused to extend the Kyoto Protocol. They dropped out when they said: If we don't have India and China, we are not going to be a part of it. Canada finally went through. Canada was one of the first countries to join in on the Kyoto Protocol, but they dropped out in 2011 and 2012.

That brings us to the Paris party that they had. They tried to make it look as if it was a success, when in fact it was a miserable, dismal failure. Our President said that we would reduce our CO2 emissions by 27 percent by 2025. Obviously, we couldn't do it. We even had a committee hearing asking how were we going to do that? We had the EPA in, and they admitted that it couldn't be done.

Then they talked about the commitment that China made at the Paris conference. China has actually produced more--this diagram gives you an idea of where China is going. They are building a new coal-powered generation plant every 10 days, and they are not about to try to restrict their CO2. They said: Ok, we will do it. Let us increase our CO2 emissions until 2025, and then we will agree that we will do a waiver. That is the extent of the regulations that have not worked.

The polling and the truth are coming out. The polling is now different than it was at first. I can remember when global warming was one of the first--either in first place or second place in the polls as to the dangers that face America. Look at the polling today. The FOX News poll last week said that 97 percent of Americans don't care about global warming when they stacked it up against terrorism, immigration, healthcare, and the economy.

The Washington Post-ABC News poll just found that fewer Americans think climate change is a serious problem.

On March 12, 2015, the Gallup poll said that climate change came in dead last of national problems of concern to Americans. Shortly after that, the Gallup poll did their annual environmental survey, and global warming came in dead last in terms of environmental issues--15th out of 15 concerns. So I am stating that the people of America have caught on. It is something that people are aware of now.

When we stop, look, and think about the cost of the Clean Power Plan, that is what this whole thing is about. I think that tomorrow the President is going to come up with a plan to do away with the Clean Power Plan. The compliance costs would be between $29 and $39 billion a year, up to $292 billion over 12 years with double-digit electricity price increases in 40 States. It would be an absolute disaster, and it is not going to happen.

What is worse than that is not just the cost but how it is hitting the most vulnerable people. Harry Alford, who is the president of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, found that the proposed Clean Power Plan would increase Black poverty by 23 percent, Hispanic poverty by 26 percent, reduce Black jobs by 200,000 and Hispanic jobs by 300,000, with a cumulative job loss of 7 million for Blacks and nearly 12 million for Hispanics by the year 2035. I have to state also that the National Energy Assistance Directors' Association found that high energy costs force seniors to forgo meals, medical care, and prescriptions in order to comply.

I am very proud of the President. He is keeping his commitment. He is not going to allow our most vulnerable citizens to be taxed, and I thank him for his help.

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, 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. 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. 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.

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

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.

I thank the Chair.

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.

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

Mr. President, President Trump is meeting this weekend with Japanese Prime Minister Abe, and so I want to take this opportunity to talk about the need for bilateral trade deals.

We have heard during the campaign and since he has been elected President of the United States that Donald Trump has not been adverse to trade. He said he is for fair trade. I think that makes sense, that we should have it.

I would like to talk about some of the problems that are there that I think he can correct that had not been corrected by the previous administration.

Bilateral trade agreements with our key allies should be a priority for this Congress, and I look forward to working with the Trump administration to ensure that these agreements grow American exports, especially for our agriculture and our energy producers.

For full disclosure, I must admit that my State of Oklahoma is a major ag State and also a major energy State.

Of our many key allies, I want to highlight three opportunities for the United States to engage in bilateral trade agreements with three countries: Japan, Taiwan, and then many of the countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Japan has the third largest economy in the world, but American farmers and ranchers are limited in their ability to access them, and this is why: They have very high tariffs on things we would want to export to Japan. At the same time, we are buying their automobiles. We are buying their products. And that is one of the typical examples of what I think our new President has been referring to. He wants to have the deals that benefit equally America and our partners. I think we can really do that.

We should engage with Japan to develop bilateral trade agreements with a focus on providing new and commercially meaningful market access for agricultural exports and smoothing the way for increased energy exports. In particular, Oklahoma beef producers are chomping at the bit to get more access to the Japanese market.

In addition to agriculture, my State is an energy State, as I mentioned, and Japan is a nation that is hungry for energy. In fact, Japan has accounted for 37 percent of global LNG purchases since 2012. LNG is liquefied natural gas. I am biased because we are a major producer in the State of Oklahoma. It is something they need, and they need to get it from someone. We ought to make this a bilateral arrangement. A trade agreement with Japan would streamline the current lengthy and pretty cumbersome process for LNG exports to Japan, ensuring that they have a reliable source of energy production and providing jobs to Oklahoma at home.

In addition to Japan, Taiwan is a close friend and ally to the United States and our ninth largest trading partner. As I happen to be the chairman of the Taiwan Caucus, I know firsthand how important it is to strengthen the U.S.-Taiwan relationship, which we can do by engaging in direct bilateral trade agreement negotiations with that country. There is no reason for us not to.

I believe that a key component of any trade agreement, including with Taiwan, is an effort to ensure that food safety and animal health regulations are aligned and based on science to ensure that any differences do not become non-tariff trade barriers. This would enable us to directly address the ban Taiwan has against U.S. pork because we use an ingredient called ractopamine in our feed to keep the hogs lean. It is perfectly safe, but Taiwan uses that as an excuse to block imports of our pork to their country. This is an issue I have already brought up with the Trump administration and with Wilbur Ross, who is waiting for confirmation as the next Secretary of Commerce. That is why we need bilateral trade agreements with Japan and Taiwan.

Our trade relations with counties in Africa are also important because, according to the Economist magazine, six of the world's fastest growing economies were in Sub-Saharan Africa from the year 2000 to 2010. For too long Sub-Saharan Africa has been ignored as a trading partner for the American Government. In fact, they pretty much have been ignored anyway.

I can remember when the continent of Africa was in three different commands. They had the Pacific Command, European Command, and Central Command. For this continent with its significance, I was somewhat instrumental in changing that, in establishing a new command, which is called the AFRICOM. The same thing has been true in terms of not using it as a trading partner.

For the last 20 years, I have been--I think I made my 144th African country visit--working with that continent, and I have seen firsthand the vast potential that is there. When they say

their economies are growing--and a lot of times they say ``Well, we are not interested in doing that'' because they are not large enough yet.

Last year, Congress enacted my ``Africa Free Trade Initiative Act,'' which requires government agencies--the USTR, USAID, and other agencies--to collaborate on efforts to build trade-based capacity in African nations. This is a step in the right direction for America to partner with and secure deeper ties to the fastest growing economies in Sub-Saharan Africa.

While some in our government may not deem Sub-Saharan African countries ready for deeper collaborations on trade with the United States, let me tell you what is going to happen if we don't. We still have this country called China. Right now, China has become very active in Africa. What you hear in Africa is, America will tell you what you need, but China builds what you need. The problem with that is, that doesn't help Africa, and Africans know this, because China imports their own labor to build all these things.

So this is one of the things we are looking at where we can actually come out ahead if we will get in on the ground floor and get involved with these economically active countries. And we need to focus more on building trade in legal capacities so that they are ready to do trade agreements, and when that time comes, they will be doing it with us and helping their economies grow. That is what our economic assistance should be all about. They grow, and we are going to grow with them.

That is a go of what was enacted in last year's African Free Trade Initiative Act, and I will continue my work with the new administration to ensure that African nations are not left behind.

With China's rising economic might, we need to strengthen America's current relationships with some of our strongest Asian allies, such as Japan and Taiwan, with new bilateral trade agreements, and this will help counter China's growing influence if that region too.

Oklahoma farmers, ranchers, energy producers, and manufacturers need competitive access to international markets to sell Oklahoma-grown and Oklahoma-produced products. New agreements with our allies would generate more economic activity and create jobs not just in Oklahoma but throughout America.

I think this is the thing that the new administration is talking about when he says we need to have--there is no justification for arrangements where we are not able to have a comparable tariff arrangement where the countries can trade with each other, and that is what we anticipate doing.

Let me mention one other thing. I know that the Senators on the other side of the aisle are spending a lot of time blocking or trying to block the nominations by this President. Every once in a while, I have to get on the floor and remind them that it is not going to work. You know they are all going to be confirmed. The votes are there, and you can say anything you want about some of the fine people who have been nominated by this President.

I was privileged to visit with President Trump in Trump Tower before he was President. I can remember going up there to visit and seeing the people who would be advisers and the types of people he was going to be nominating, and it was very impressive. Now we have gone through a situation where the Democrats in the Senate have stalled these nominations. They stalled them longer than they have ever been stalled in the history of America, going all the way back to George Washington. All we are doing is wasting time that we could be acting productively in correcting some of the problems we have in this country.

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