Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have been fortunate enough to get to know Jeff Sessions over the past 20 years. Not only is he a colleague whom I admire and respect, he is also one of my very best friends. I actually suffered through with him back when he had a nomination that was rejected by this body many years ago.

As you know, Senator Sessions has been nominated by the President to be the next Attorney General of the United States. It is an incredible honor. There is no doubt in my mind that my friend will be perfect for the job. He is more than qualified for this position, and I know he will keep his word when he says he plans to uphold the laws we pass in Congress.

Senator Sessions was elected to the Senate in 1997. That was 2 years after I was elected, and we have been very close friends ever since. For 20 years now, we have known each other and worked alongside each other on both the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Environment and Public Works Committee. Those are the two major committees we have been on. He is seated just to my right in each one of the committees, and, as the Chair knows, you get to know a person pretty well when you have been sitting there for these 3- or 4-hour-long meetings. So we have had that relationship with each other.

Not only have we worked together, but we have also traveled and prayed together. You really get to know someone when you work, travel, and pray together. When working, a person's mind is revealed; when traveling, a person's character is revealed; and when you pray, the person's heart is revealed. I have come to know Senator Sessions as a God-fearing family man who puts others before himself and has a deep respect for the rule of law.

Family man--every time he has a grandchild, his wife and my wife talk about our competing grandchildren.

He helps those in need and makes sure that the legal system is protecting our citizens and holding criminals accountable.

A person only needs to look at the legislation and causes he has championed to know him. He played a key role in fighting for fairness and funding for the rural HIV/AIDS patients when negotiating a reauthorization of the bipartisan Ryan White CARE Act. His advocacy brought funding to low-income, mostly African-American women who did not have easily accessible health care before. Senator Sessions has been an author and supporter of many pieces of bipartisan legislation, including protecting victims of child abuse, reducing prison sentences for those who are unfairly targeted, and helping the families of our fallen military personnel.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Sessions has become a fierce advocate for keeping our country safe from terrorism, and he understands the risks we face. In fact, Senator Sessions is tough on crime and is well suited to oversee Federal law enforcement activities and to assist local governments in their efforts.

Violent crime has recently been increasing. Furthermore--and I just found this out--the shooting deaths of police officers has increased by 68 percent just in the last year, between 2015 and 2016. That is pretty remarkable. These trends are unacceptable, and Senator Sessions has pledged to reverse the course by strengthening the partnership between Federal and local law enforcement and by going after drug traffickers, aliens who violate the laws, and criminals who use guns to commit crimes.

There is no question that Senator Sessions is qualified to do what he says he will and what the job asks of him. He served as a U.S. attorney for Alabama's Southern District, and he was also Alabama's attorney general, so he clearly knows the job. He doesn't have to be trained. It is because of his previous experiences that he will be able to transition from a partisan legislator to our Nation's top law enforcement officer with great ease.

Countless groups of people have come out to support the nominee: the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, former U.S. attorneys, a former FBI Director, current

State attorneys general, and many more. All of the law enforcement professionals are behind him, and there is a reason for it: It is because that is his record, and people are aware of it.

So I would like to take a minute to point out that it is cruel and unfair that people have tried to paint a picture of Senator Sessions as someone and something he is not. I think this is something that needs to be said.

The man the opposition has painted does not exist. You all know Jeff Sessions. You know that the awful things being said about him are completely false. In fact, back in 1981, the Ku Klux Klan ordered the tragic, extremely undeserved murder of a young African-American man by the name of Michael Donald. Because of Senator Sessions's help and support, these Klan members were convicted and given either life sentences or the death penalty. That is Jeff Sessions. Furthermore, he later played a major role in the destruction of the Ku Klux Klan in Alabama when he helped bring a civil suit against them. As a result, the KKK went bankrupt, and he caused them to fall apart in that region. Again, those were Jeff Sessions' efforts.

Before we vote on the confirmation of our friend and colleague, I ask that you all take a moment to seriously reflect how Senator Sessions has worked diligently with you over the past two decades and how perfectly qualified he is for this position.

As for me, I thank him for his tireless efforts in Congress, for his friendship, and for his fellowship. He will go down as one of the truly great U.S. Attorneys General in this country's history.

Mr. President, there are a lot of other nominees whom I have gotten to know. I had an experience of actually going to Trump Tower and getting to know some of the people who advise him. As I looked around the table, I saw people who were the right kind of people in health care, the right kind of people in energy, and the right kind of people in the military to give him advice in areas he might not have been exposed to in the past.

And I just noticed that it has been very slow. I was not aware of this until a few minutes ago, that apparently the Cabinet confirmations are the slowest since George Washington. This is something that is really wrong. You can criticize someone, but after a while, you just go ahead and you know the votes are there, and you make sure that you go ahead and do it.

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

Mr. President, first of all, I appreciate the opportunity to get wedged in here. There are a number of very interesting things happening today. One is the CRA that I am very much concerned about. I know that my good friend from Massachusetts did not misrepresent something intentionally; however, this is a little bit more complicated than people think it is.

I spoke earlier this week on our need to roll back a lot of these regulations that were handed down during the Obama administration. They are all a part of that War on Fossil Fuels, and as you hear, that war is still going on with some of those individuals. However, President Obama is gone, and now we have to look at some of these overregulations.

For a number of years, I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee. During that period of time, that particular committee had the jurisdiction over the EPA, which is where most of the bad regulations came from. When I say ``bad regulations,'' I am talking about the overregulations that make it very difficult for our companies to compete with foreign companies that don't have these types of regulations.

Let me share something that is not very well understood, and that is what a CRA really is. There are a lot of people of the liberal persuasion who would like very much to have everything they could regulated in Washington, DC. For example, one of the fights we had was the WOTUS fight. If you ask any of the farmers and ranchers in America--not just in my State of Oklahoma but Nebraska and many other States--what is the most serious problem they have, they would say it is the overregulation of the EPA. If you ask them, of all the regulations, which ones are the most difficult for the farmers out there trying to scratch a living, they will say it is the regulations on water.

Historically, the jurisdiction of water is a State jurisdiction. Now, a liberal always wants that jurisdiction to be with the Federal Government in Washington. That is their nature. I don't criticize them for that. They believe that. But if you ask the farmers in my State of Oklahoma, they will say they don't want that to happen. Historically, water has always been the State's jurisdiction, with the exception of navigable water. We understand that navigable water should have a Federal jurisdiction. In fact, I would have to say there was a real effort 6 years ago by a Senator who at that time was representing the State of Wisconsin and a House Member who was representing a district in Minnesota. Those two individuals introduced legislation to take the word ``navigable'' out of water regulations so the Federal Government would have jurisdiction over all of the water in the States as opposed to the State having that jurisdiction. Not only did we defeat the legislation, but both of those Members were defeated in the polls when they came up for reelection on that issue. The people are clearly on our side.

Where does a CRA come in? A CRA is something that has been used to shed light on what we are doing here. I am talking about with respect to our elected representatives. If there are regulations that are punitive to the businesses back home, when the Senator goes back to his or her State, they can say: Well, that wasn't I, that was an unelected bureaucrat who did that. I am opposed to it. They have a shield so people don't really know where they stand. A CRA takes away that shield because the CRA challenges a regulation, and it has to be voted on, forcing Members of the Senate and the House to be responsible for how they are really voting. It is a way of shedding light.

We have a lot of CRAs coming. One is going to be a CRA that I sponsored having to do with a regulation in the Dodd-Frank bill, in section 1504. As I mentioned, most of the overregulations come from the EPA, but this particular regulation didn't come from the EPA. It came from the Dodd-Frank banking legislation having to do with financial services. It is in a section that had nothing to do with financial services. Section 1504 requires all information to be made public that would come from a bid. In the United States of America, our oil and gas companies are in the private sector, but in China it is run by the government. If we are competing for an oil and gas issue that might be in Tanzania and we are competing with China, China would be competing as a government, and we would be doing it

in the private sector. Section 1504 requires the private sector to disclose all elements of their bid when they are competing for a contract with China. The reason for this initially was to preclude a country's leaders from attempting to steal money that was given to them for a certain oil project. With this disclosure, they would not be able to do it. Well, you don't have to have all the components of the bid. All you have to have is the top line, how much money was actually sent to, in this case, the country of Tanzania.

The courts came along in 2014 and said this regulation was wrong. There are a couple of problems. One problem is that there is no reason in the world that you should have a mandate to disclose all the details of a bid because that is giving away information to the competition, giving the other side an advantage. The other problem is the expense of it. We are talking about $600 million a year that would be borne by the private sector in America that China would not have to pay. So it only punishes those within the United States.

After the courts threw this out, the SEC should have reworked the rule. They were instructed to rework the rule so every detail of the bidding did not have to be disclosed, just the total amount. That solved the problem that was perceived to be out there because then it would be known that so much money, for instance, maybe a check for $50 million, would go out, and we wouldn't have to break down the details of it. The main thing is, we need to know, in good government--and that was the intention in the first place--how much money was going to a foreign government.

Some have argued that the CRA is motivated by companies who want to get around transparency. That is clearly not the case. The courts have said it is not the case. Oil and gas companies in particular are longstanding supporters of greater transparency initiatives such as the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, the EITI, that is a multilateral, multistakeholder global initiative composed of energy companies, civil society organizations, and host governments. The EITI rules would apply equally to all companies that would be operating in a country. That would level the playing field.

We have also heard from those on the left saying that voting to repeal the rule would be a vote in favor of corruption. Yet, importantly, the United States already has in place the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits the paying of bribes to foreign officials to assist in obtaining or trying to retain business. The Federal Government is able to bring civil enforcement actions against companies that violate this rule, and section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act did not change that. That was in place before and is still in place now. If we pass the CRA and eliminate section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank Act, it is not going to change things.

There are others in the humanitarian community who have expressed concern to me that the CRA will undermine efforts to fight corruption in other governments around the world. Let me assure you that I support your goal.

The courts were emphatic when they said this regulation should be repealed. In fact, it was taken down by the court way back in 2013. Well, it has come back up again. What we want to do is merely comply with what the courts told us to do in 2013, and that is to use the CRA to knock out this section 1504 and go back and rewrite it to take out merely the requirement for a breakdown of all the individual elements of a contract. That is something we intend to do.

I see my good friend from West Virginia, who I think would understand just as well as anyone that when I go back to my State of Oklahoma, they say to me: You have a President--this was back when President Obama was President--who has a War on Fossil Fuels. Fossil fuels are coal, oil, gas, and I would include nuclear. Coming from my State of Oklahoma, they ask: Explain how, if 89 percent of the power that is generated in America comes from fossil fuels and nuclear and they are successful in doing away with it, how do we run this machine called America? The answer is, we can't. We have to have it.

I think we all understand what we want to do is have this rule changed so we are not put at a competitive disadvantage so we are able to go ahead and compete with countries that have a government-run system. To be able to do that, we need to rewrite this particular act. Again, the courts have already agreed to that and that is what we are attempting to do.

For those concerned about the timing and speed of the CRA, I have good news. The actual rule is not set to go into effect until 2018 anyway. The more swiftly we can enact the CRA, the more time it will give us and the SEC to rework it. This is something that is perfectly acceptable.

Some of my critics say we can't come back with a rule that is substantially the same. This will not be substantially the same. Actually, this is what the court recommended in 2013.

In closing, I want to ask this question: If we put forth a rule that makes it harder for U.S. companies overseas, who will fill the void? The U.S. companies have the best environmental standards, the best labor practices, and the least corruption of many of the other countries. However, if this vacuum is there, the business will go to companies from China, India, and Mexico that don't care about pollution and don't care about labor standards. That is not what we want to have happen. What we need to do is foster a strong competitive environment, with reduced corruption overseas, for the benefit of those living under these governments.

So I invite my colleagues to join me in this effort to do away with this regulation through the CRA and to repeal section 1504 of Dodd- Frank and rewrite it so it accomplishes the goal of stopping corruption and at the same time is not going to put us at a competitive disadvantage.

With that, I yield the floor.

Will the Senator from Ohio yield for a request?

I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Ohio, I be recognized for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I know that President Obama is gone now, but his War on Fossil Fuels is alive and well. However, they are not winning that.

Back in Oklahoma, they ask me the question sometimes: If all of the liberals are concerned and if they are all opposed to fossil fuels--and to nuclear, I might add; coal, oil, gas, and nuclear--if coal, oil, gas, and nuclear are responsible for 89 percent of the power it takes to run this country, how do you run the country without those? Those are the kinds of questions we get.

I appreciate and--I know it is a very popular statement that was made by my friend from Ohio; unfortunately, it has nothing to do with the issues we are looking at right now.

Back during the time Dodd-Frank was considered, it was dealing with banks and financial institutions. It had nothing to do with energy. Yet section 1504 was put in there. Part of section 1504 required that information be provided during the course of a competitive situation for some kind of a project.

I will give you an example. We have a private sector in our oil and gas. For China, that is a government project. If we are competing with them--let's say for some cause that is in Tanzania or someplace--they said, so that there is a safeguard and there can't be corruption, so that if we should win--I say ``we,'' but I am talking about the private sector in the United States of America--then they have to report the information to the SEC, which in turn makes it published. Their intent was not to have to break down everything that was in that offer. It is the bottom line.

What is the total cost that goes to these countries? What are the total costs? That is all they care about because if that money went to Tanzania--and there are some corrupt officials there and they might steal some of the money, but to keep that from happening, we want to report what the cost was in the winning party. You don't have to have all that information.

In fact, in 2013, the court struck this down because they said that was not the intent. The intent was to have the total figure, so they said, even suggested--and our intent at that time was to vacate that, as the court did vacate that rule and send it back and have the SEC redo it in such a way that it would affect only the amount of money that would go that might cause some corruption at some time. That is what it was all about. Unfortunately, they put together another one that was very similar and required a lot of information that was not necessary.

I would like to correct something on the CRA that the Senator from Ohio said. The CRA is there because when an unelected bureaucrat comes out with some kind of an unreasonable rule that is very costly to the people of this country and it is done by someone who is not an elected official, the elected official says: Look at this. Wait a minute. This is something that people are complaining about when I go home.

They love that because they can say: This wasn't me. This wasn't me. This was an unelected bureaucrat that put these rules in.

What a CRA does is make us in the House and in the Senate more accountable because we have to then stand up and vote on something, saying that we endorse this rule or we don't endorse this rule. That is what it is all about.

Anyway, we have an opportunity here to go ahead, and I am certainly

hoping that we will do this and change this rule so that it would make as a requirement nothing but the amount of money that is paid by the winning party in a situation where they are competing with each other.

If that happens, then we will know how much money that was, and we will be able to go to the party and find out if they are stealing some of this money. Why is it necessary to have all of the components of competition when you have the private sector in the United States of America competing with countries like China where it is a government- owned institution?

That is all this is about. All we want to do is to be able say we want to report so that the public knows how much the total bid or, in this case, the total amount was, not all the components that went into the calculation of that. That is all it is about.

My time has expired.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Honorable Elaine Chao to serve as the next Secretary of Transportation. She has proven she has the experience and the drive to help her accomplish President Trump's goals to address our nation's infrastructure needs heads on. I have known Elaine for many decades as a dedicated civil servant and a talented negotiator and have no doubt she will again prove to be a highly effective asset to the Executive branch. Elaine Chao was born in Taiwan and, at the age of 8, came with her family to America by cargo ship where, at the age of 19, she became a U.S. citizen.

From those humble beginnings, she went on to receive degrees from Mount Holyoke College in Massachusetts and Harvard Business School.

Elaine Chao began her executive career at the U.S. Department of Transportation in 1986, as Deputy Administrator of the Maritime Administration, then as Deputy Secretary from 1989 to 1991. She served as the Director of the Peace Corps, in 1991, where she brought the Peace Corp programs to the liberated countries of Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania; and as president and CEO of the United Way of America where she helped restore fiscal responsibility to an organization that had been damaged by mismanagement.

In 2001, she become the 24th U.S. Secretary of Labor, the first Asian Pacific American woman to be appointed to the President's cabinet in American history, in President George W. Bush's cabinet. During her 8- year tenure at the Department of Labor Department, she proved she has the skills to manage large multifaceted organizations as well as to initiate needed reforms and new programs that help create jobs and competiveness in the workforce. Quite frankly, she was the best Secretary of Labor the United States has ever had.

During her tenure, the Department updated the white collar overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, which has been on the agenda of every administration since 1977. The most significant regulatory tort reform of President Bush's first term, the new regulations provided millions of low-wage vulnerable workers with strengthened overtime protection.

In 2003, under her leadership, the Department achieved the first major update of union financial disclosure regulations in more than 40 years, giving rank and file members enhanced information on how their hard-earned dues are spent. The Department set new worker protection enforcement records, including recovering record back wages for vulnerable low-wage immigrant workers. The Department also launched comprehensive reform of the Nation's publicly funded worker training programs, to better serve dislocated and unemployed workers.

I have complete confidence in her abilities and look forward to working with her in her new capacity as the 18th U.S. Secretary of Transportation.

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

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, we are introducing today a CRA that is kind of interesting. This is something that has only been successful one time.

I think everyone knows that during the past 8 years, under the Obama administration, we have seen thousands, literally thousands of regulations that have come through that have been anti-business, many of them anti-certain businesses, such as the oil and gas industries. It is no secret, the fact that we have had a President, in President Obama, who has had a war on fossil fuels.

It is interesting to me that when I go back to my State of Oklahoma-- one reason I go back all the time is because I want to be around real, rational people. Sometimes I get the feeling there really aren't any around here. They ask questions. They will say: Tell me. Explain this to me. In the United States of America, in order to generate power, 89 percent of the power we are generating is either fossil fuels, coal, oil, gas, or nuclear. If we do away with 89 percent of our generation capability, then how do we run the machine called America?

The answer is that we can't. But we don't get those types of questions here. I am sure most of us who go back find that kind of concern, and it is not confined to Oklahoma.

I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee during the 8 years--during the time President Obama was in office, and most of the regulations were actually associated with that committee. Many committees have regulations associated with their committees but not nearly as many as Environment and Public Works. An example is the WOTUS regulation. Ask anyone with the American Farm Bureau or anyone who deals with farmers and ranchers, and the No. 1 problem they have, they will tell you, is nothing that is found on the AgNu Committee; it is the overregulation of the EPA. That is one example. The Environment and Public Works Committee is the committee that has the jurisdiction over the EPA--at least we are supposed to.

During the time when WOTUS came through--the water regulation--it has historically always been the States' jurisdiction to handle water issues, not the Federal Government, with the exception of navigable water. I think we all understand that. In fact, there were several liberal Members in the House and Senate who tried to take the word ``navigable'' out of the regulations, and we defeated them every time. The last two who tried to do that were, in fact, defeated in the polls.

We know that in the State of Oklahoma--I should say our farmers know that if you put the Federal Government in charge of water regulations in the western part of Oklahoma, which is an arid part of the State, it would end up being designated as a wetland. Anyway, that is a major concern they had.

Another example of regulation is President Obama's Clean Power Plan. We all know how that came about. Way back in 1972, I was one of the bad guys who told the truth about what they were referring to as global warming, saying the world was coming to an end. Even though a lot of the Members of this body didn't join in and agree with me, every time, without exception, they came up with a bill that would do something-- such as a cap-and-trade bill, for example--we defeated the bill, and it was continually defeated by an even larger margin as time went by.

President Obama came in, and when he couldn't get the legislation he wanted passed, he tried to do it through regulation. That is what he did with the Clean Power Plan--another rule that was rejected.

I only bring up those examples because they are typical regulations that put people out of business that actually came through my committee.

I am here to introduce S.J. Res. 9. This did not come through my committee; it came through a provision that is in the Dodd-Frank bill. Anyone going back to their States and talking to bankers or anyone in the financial industry, when talking about the Dodd-Frank bill, it is an example of the same type of overregulation that takes place on many of the issues that come before my committee.

Section 1504 of the Dodd-Frank bill requires the Securities and Exchange Commission to develop a rule that requires companies to report payments made to a foreign government or the U.S. Federal Government relating to the commercial development of oil, natural gas, and minerals. That is a requirement which is not found in our committee, but it is found in the committee that handled the Dodd-Frank bill.

While that may not sound all that significant, it strikes at the heart of American competitiveness. It makes public the information of our very best companies on how to win oil and gas deals. It requires companies to disclose and make public highly confidential and commercially sensitive information, and this is information that foreign competitors don't have to provide. Under this regulation, we would be required to provide it. That means that American companies would have to disclose all of the background and sensitive information that companies develop in competing for contracts of some kind having to do with oil and gasoline. It could be with another country, like Iran. It could be with individuals over there who are not friendly to the United States. Countries that don't wish to disclose the details of their commercial deals would now have a strong incentive to go with companies in countries that don't have that burdensome requirement. That is only natural.

To make matters worse, the SEC's rule lacks an exemption for circumstances in which disclosure under 1504 would violate the laws of a country where a U.S. company is operating. So it leaves U.S. companies with a choice of complying with U.S. laws or the laws of foreign countries. That is an impossible position to be in and could put U.S. employees at risk of criminal prosecution abroad for facilitating the release of this information.

If that weren't enough, the cost of complying with this regulation is enormous. American companies would have to comply, and it could cost millions of dollars. The SEC's estimate of the total compliance cost initially would be up to $700 million. The ongoing compliance costs would be as much as $581 million annually. Those costs would be borne by U.S. companies, and our competition would not have to do that.

The courts already struck down this rule when it was first developed in August 2012. The DC Federal district court struck down the rule in 2013 because of two substantial errors. Specifically, the Commission had ``misread section 1504 to mandate public disclosure of the reports'' and had arbitrarily declined to provide an exemption for countries that prohibit disclosure.

The new rule, finalized in June of 2016, doesn't look any different. It is the same rule. Even though the SEC was told by the courts that the rule did not reflect congressional intent, they continued to put out a new rule that had the exact same problems as the one the court had vacated. It is the same rule. It is as if the Obama administration was rushing this rule out in hopes that there wouldn't be time or an opportunity for a court or Congress to overturn it. But here we are in the process of overturning it.

Last week President Trump issued an Executive order to reduce the regulatory impact on American businesses. With this CRA, we have an opportunity to effectively participate in that. Our focus should always be America first. As the Congress looks at the competitiveness of American companies, we should not be subjecting our own citizens to lawsuits, and that is exactly what this regulation would do.

By the way, I think we are going to get a lot of CRAs going forward, and I think it is important for people to understand what the CRA is. The CRA is the Congressional Review Act.

There are a lot of liberal people who like to have power concentrated in Washington--like with the WOTUS rule. They would rather have the jurisdiction of the waters of the United States with the Federal Government instead of with State governments. That is human nature. That is not something up for debate. Everybody knows that.

When individuals who are trying to centralize power in Washington go home and hear complaints from people in their States about regulations and overregulation in our society, their response is, well, that is not us, that is some unelected bureaucrat. A CRA forces Members of the Senate and House of Representatives to be held accountable to the people by having to take a position so that they can't go home and say: No, the regulators are doing this. It is interesting because it puts them in a position where, if we pass a CRA--and we are going to pass S.J. Res. 9--this will come before this body and we will have to say yes or no. Should we do away with this rule that everyone back home is opposed to? It forces them to be honest.

I think this is one CRA that many Democrats should be sponsoring and voting for, and I wouldn't be surprised if we are able to get some cosponsors.

Let me add one last point to outline what this is about. Within the Dodd-Frank bill, section 1504 is a requirement on U.S. companies competing for oil and gas deals throughout the world to disclose to their competition what goes into their bid and how they are putting it together, even when the other side doesn't have to do that.

I look forward to having the opportunity to bring this to the floor as soon as we get our initial 30 signatures on here. Senators will see and have an opportunity to support this first CRA that I am very excited about.

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

Mr. President, I was not preparing to come down to speak today, but I just want to make a few comments because I have been listening to what is going on in one of the other rooms out there. Everyone is zeroing in and targeting a guy named Scott Pruitt, who they don't think should be confirmed to be the Administrator of the EPA. I know Scott Pruitt very well, and he happens to be the attorney general for my State of Oklahoma. In fact, I recruited him to run for the State legislature many years ago, and he is someone I know very well. He resides in my city of Tulsa, OK, and he is eminently qualified for this position. I would just like to make a couple of comments in response.

I chaired the Environment and Public Works Committee for some number of years, and during that timeframe, we started considering his nomination. I heard all kinds of criticism. I say to the Chair that they talk about the fact that he has sued the EPA and how can a person who has sued the EPA be qualified to serve as the Administrator of the EPA? Well, I think that is a pretty good qualification, considering what the EPA was doing during the Obama administration. Look at some of the lawsuits he has been involved with.

``WOTUS'' is the acronym for ``waters of the United States.'' Of the many regulations they have come up with, this is one of the most onerous. In fact, I would say that probably in all States--Louisiana, Oklahoma, and the rest of them--they gave the same response as the farm girl gave when we asked the question--I asked the question: What is the worst thing that could happen or has happened to the farmers and ranchers of America--not just in Oklahoma but throughout America? And they said it is not anything that is in the Agriculture bill, it is the overregulation of the EPA. When we ask the question ``Which of all the overregulations of the EPA is the worst one?'' according to farmers, it is the WOTUS regulation, the waters of the United States.

For as long as I can remember, liberals have tried to get the jurisdiction of water away from the States and give it to the Federal Government. I mean, that is the general philosophy of someone who is liberal--they want the power of the United States to be concentrated in Washington. So this is a part of that effort. As a matter of fact, it was 6 years ago that there was a House Member and a Senate Member who introduced a bill to take the word ``navigable'' out of our laws. State governments have control of all water rights except for navigable waters. If they had taken the word ``navigable'' out, the Federal Government could have taken over the entire jurisdiction. The two who were doing that were Senator Feingold from Wisconsin and Congressman Oberstar from Minnesota. Not only did we defeat both of those pieces of legislation 6 years ago, but they were both defeated at the polls afterward. So if this is an issue, it is an issue that has been around for a long time.

So yes, in fact, Scott Pruitt, as the attorney general of Oklahoma, from Tulsa, joined 15 other States, including the State of Louisiana, in suing to stop the rule that the Obama administration had put through in WOTUS, the water resources. To show how he was on sound ground, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has since that time said that, yes, he was right. They put a stay on it.

The next bill, the next of the regulations--I just did a TV thing where they were asking about the most onerous of regulations. It is kind of hard to answer that question because they are all so bad--they all inflict such a hardship on the business community throughout America--but the Clean Power Plan, let's go back and look at the history of that.

The Clean Power Plan all started back in about 2002, when at that time they wanted to do it when they first started talking about global warming so they were going to somehow do away with the emissions of CO2. So they tried to do it with legislation in 2002, and then again in 2004, again in 2005, and about every other year since then, and it has always been rejected by the Senate. It has been rejected by the Senate by an increased margin each time. Yet they keep saying, no, we are going to have some type of cap-and-trade legislation. We calculated what that would cost. It is between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, and frankly it wouldn't accomplish anything.

The first administrator for the EPA under Obama was Lisa Jackson. I enjoyed her. I asked her the question: If

we were to do away with CO2 altogether in the United States, would this have the effect of reducing it worldwide, and she said: No, because this isn't where the problem is. The problem is in China, India, and in Mexico. So the more we chase our ability to generate electricity to those areas, the more--and they don't have any restrictions on CO2 emissions--then that is going to increase, not decrease.

They were not able to pass it legislatively. So along comes President Obama, and he said: Well, we can't do it through legislation, we will do it through regulation, so they had the Clean Power Plan. The Clean Power Plan was essentially the same thing as the legislation we defeated.

So Scott Pruitt, the attorney general from Oklahoma, came along, and he filed a lawsuit against the EPA, and this worked out really pretty well. It had a lot of support behind it. It wasn't the Sixth Circuit, it was the U.S. Supreme Court that stayed this. So what I am saying is, sure, he has had the occasion, along with some 26 other States, in the case of the Clean Power Plan, of filing a lawsuit against the EPA, but he has been successful in doing that.

Let me clarify another thing that has been misrepresented on this floor several times. They referred to a characterization I gave about 4 or 5 years ago called the hoax. The hoax is not climate change. We all know the climate is constantly changing. All the evidence is there. There is scriptural evidence, historical evidence. It has always been there. The climate has always changed. The hoax is that the world is coming to an end because of manmade gases. That is the clarification that needs to be made if we are going to be completely honest.

By the way, when they criticized Scott Pruitt for suing the EPA, I am reminding them that he also has sued several oil companies, including ConocoPhillips--he had a lawsuit against them for alleged double dipping--as well as BP and Chevron, so it is not just as if he is somehow owned by the oil companies. I always have to say, when people say the oil companies contribute to campaigns, not anything like the far left environmentalists do.

I remember Tom Steyer. Tom Steyer said before the 2014 elections: I am going to put $100 million of my money to elect people who go along with all of these far-left programs. Of course, it didn't work in 2014. He actually at that time spent $75 million. This is one individual we are talking about. So those guys over there, they are the ones who are putting money into campaigns, and I understand that.

The last thing I want to correct--and I wish more people would talk about this. Frankly, I wish President Trump would say more about this because they always talk about how 97 percent of the scientists go along with the global warming thing. That isn't true at all. In fact, if you go to my Web site, you will find a piece that was in the Wall Street Journal that makes it very clear that isn't true and documents that case. The scientists who have been saying this are one group that is called the IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That is the United Nations, in case there is someone who doesn't understand that. They are the ones who have provided all the credibility in terms of the science that backs up all the statements that are made about global warming.

I had the occasion--some people are not aware that once every December, now for 21 years, the United Nations has had the biggest party of the year. It is always in some exotic place. I remember in 2009 it was in Copenhagen. We had all the people--several friends I love dearly here in the U.S. Senate and in the House went over there to tell 192 countries that we were going to pass legislation that would have cap and trade. I went over as the truth squad of one person to tell them what had been represented to them was, in fact, not going to happen.

Well, right before going, Lisa Jackson was the first nominee, or the first confirmed Administrator of the EPA. I asked her the question on the record, live on TV, in the committee room, on the committee that I chaired, I said: I am going to be going over to Copenhagen to tell them the truth over there, and, in the meantime, you are going to take over jurisdiction so you can try to do this with a regulation. To do that, you have to have an endangerment finding. To have an endangerment finding, you have to have science behind that. She was smiling. She is a very honest person.

I asked her: What science are you going to use for your endangerment finding that gives you the opportunity to do what you couldn't do with legislation that you think you can do with regulation? She said: The IPCC, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As luck would have it, it was a matter of days after that that climategate came about. How many people remember climategate? They never talk about it. Let me just tell you how it was characterized. Climategate was those individuals who were at the top of the IPCC had gotten together and tried to alter the science to support their point of view, and they got caught doing it. The world responded to it. Newsweek: ``Once celebrated climate researchers feeling like the used car salesman.''

``Some of the IPCC's most quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures. . . . ''

The U.N. scientist Dr. Philip Lloyd said: ``The result is not scientific.''

They were all talking about climategate. They were talking about how the IPCC rigged the science.

A guy that was an IPCC physicist said that ``Climategate was a fraud on a scale I've never seen.''

Clive Crook of the Financial Times said that ``the stink of intellectual corruption is overpowering.''

Christopher Booker with the UK's Telegraph--that is one of the largest in London--said it is the ``worst scientific scandal of our generation.''

They are talking about the science that is behind the accusations they have made.

So if anyone hears these claims repeated, or even if it has been repeated, saying that at least 97 percent of the scientists agree, they are not right.

My time has expired, but I just wanted to clarify that so people know--because one thing I know that is going to happen is, Scott Pruitt, the attorney general of the State of Oklahoma, will be confirmed by a good margin--I think by a party margin--to be the Administrator of the EPA. It will be a great change.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, it is my understanding that we have someone coming down in about 10 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized shortly after 2:25 p.m. I wish to lock that in--Senator Hoeven and then me.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for such time as I shall consume.

Madam President, I was listening very carefully to the Senator talking about our situation with the pipeline, and there is something else I was going to talk about, but I want to make sure we say it as often as we can. I have sent for a poster which I want to share with the Senate.

My State of Oklahoma is more than just passively interested in the pipeline. In the center of Oklahoma is a town called Cushing. Cushing, OK, happens to be the central location for the pipelines going throughout the United States--east, west, north, and south. The picture, if it does arrive, that I wanted to share with everyone is of this President who is trying to, I guess, insult our intelligence by having it both ways. I think the Senator from North Dakota made it very clear that the President is dragging his feet and that he has been able to successfully stop the pipeline from coming through.

The picture I will show is a picture of President Obama coming into my State of Oklahoma and standing with all the barrels behind him in Cushing, OK, announcing that he is not going to stop the pipeline from going south from Oklahoma down to the Texas border. That is very good because he cannot do it. The only place he can stop it is when it crosses the international border. Of course that is where he is continuing to stop it.

I have to say he has lost the war of words on this because people know we have an opportunity--that everything the Senator said is correct. We can be totally independent in no time at all. We are not talking about years, we are talking about weeks and months. We can have our total independence just by lifting all the restrictions we have right now, not just the pipeline but what is happening on Federal land.

It is interesting. We have gone through this shale revolution in this country, and it has been so overwhelming. In the last 5 years it has been in spite of the President because he continues in his budget to have all kinds of punitive provisions for the oil and gas industry. Yet because of what has happened with the shale revolution, the use of hydraulic fracturing, the horizontal drilling, we have increased our production over the last 5 years by 61 percent. All of the 61 percent is in private land or it is in State land. We have on Federal land a reduction. While the rest of the country has increased 61 percent, it has been reduced by 6 percent. That is the dilemma we have right now.

It goes far beyond just the pipeline. We have an opportunity to be completely free--and I am talking about our Northern Hemisphere--being free from dependence on anyone in any part of the world for our ability to produce the energy necessary to run this machine called America.

(The remarks of Mr. Inhofe pertaining to the introduction of S. 452 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today because there is something going on that people are not as aware of as they should be.

We don't have a better friend than King Abdullah in Jordan. I have been pleased to get to know him as a personal friend as well as a friend of America. I was over there with him last October. We were on the Syrian border looking at all the things that are going on right now with ISIL and ISIS, and it has been a real tragedy.

Last week King Abdullah was in the United States for the National Prayer Breakfast. While he was here, there were several of us who were with him when he got the news that his friend and relative, an F-16 pilot, had been caged, soaked with gasoline, and burned alive.

America and the whole world saw what happened and asked: What kind of monsters are these people who are doing this over there? They are beheading children and pregnant women and burning people alive. Yet this is going on. People have to understand this.

They do understand it in terms of ISIS. But what I want to share with you, and introduce legislation to correct, is that it is not just happening there, it is also happening in Ukraine right now.

I happened to be in Ukraine in late October of this year. I went over there because they were having their parliamentary elections at the time. Ukraine has been such a good friend to us--not just Poroshenko, but the rest of the administration that went through the parliamentary election has also been a friend.

Let's keep in mind that the Presidential elections were way back in May. This last election was the parliamentary election, and we were there to see what was happening in the Ukraine.

In the Ukraine they have a constitutional requirement that you cannot have a seat in Parliament unless you have 5 percent of the vote. This is the first time, after the vote when we were there in October, that they had a parliamentary election and not one Communist got a seat in Parliament. This is the first time in 96 years that not one Communist has a seat in the Parliament.

As bad as things are with ISIS, I suggest that what is going on--and I only preface what I am saying so I can demonstrate what a good friend Poroshenko and the leadership of the Ukraine is to the United States. We have the Russians in there with the separatists doing horrible things--things that are just as bad as what is taking place in Syria with ISIS and in other places.

To demonstrate this--it is not a very fun thing to look at, but you have to understand what is happening. These are T-72 tanks. Putin keeps saying: We don't have any Russians in there with the separatists. It is not us. We are not doing it.

Well, here they are. These are the pictures we brought back with us. All those tanks are lined up within Ukraine, and that is clearly what they are.

If you want to see how brutal Putin and everyone else is--it is not something anyone enjoys looking at, but you have to know this is going on. The tragedies that are taking place in Syria and in other parts of the world are also taking place in Ukraine.

This is a picture of the murders and torture that have been taking place there. These people have been disembodied, their heads cut off. These are Ukrainian citizens. They are legal citizens. They are the ones whom Putin and the rest of them are fighting. For that reason, I have introduced legislation to require that the United States offer the weaponry.

By the way, I was making a presentation about this issue and Senator

McCain was there. He said: If you look at all of those tanks, they don't have one piece of equipment that could offer a defense against those tanks. What have we been giving them? We have been giving them MREs and blankets.

When Poroshenko was here in the United States, he made a speech to both Houses. He said that ``one can't win the war with blankets. . . . Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.'' In other words, we have to share the very best defensive weapons or weapons that can be used offensively with them. They cannot be left naked there when facing this kind of abuse. We know that shortly after the heavily armed Russian soldiers invaded and took control of the Crimean region in February of 2014, the Ukrainian Government and its people faced and sustained a deadly force from heavily armed rebel separatists who were equipped, trained, and supported by the Russian Federation. We have seen pictures of that. This is the first time we have shown pictures that document, No. 1, that the equipment came from Russia and Putin, and, No. 2, the type of things they are doing over there.

We passed a law last year that said we would give defensive weaponry to the Ukrainians, but it fell short because of one thing--it was prescriptive. It said what kind of equipment it would be.

The bill I am introducing today does two things. It offers the equipment we can give them with no restrictions whatsoever, and secondly, it does something else I think is very significant, and that is we require the President to come up with a strategy. People always say: Well, the President doesn't have a strategy against ISIS. It is true he doesn't have one, and it is deplorable that he doesn't have one. He also doesn't have a strategy for Ukraine. Without a strategy, it is not going to work.

Last week we had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was kind of funny because we had people from the past. We had George Shultz, Madeleine Albright, and Henry Kissinger. We were talking about the Ukraine at that time and talked about offering some equipment we thought should go there, and they said: Well, you have to do that, but you can't just send them equipment. You have to specifically demand a strategy. In this bill we are saying to the President of the United States to not only send over equipment but we need to also provide a strategy we can massage as time goes on.

On February 2, 2015, eight of the former senior ranking diplomatic and military officials testified. They included the former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, Steven Pifer; former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy; former Supreme Allied Commander ADM James Stavridis, and former Deputy Commander to the U.S. Command, Gen. Charles Wald. They all served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They released a nonpartisan report calling on President Obama to provide Ukraine with lethal weaponry, and this is what we talked about in the bill. They encouraged other NATO countries to do the same, particularly those that possess and used former Soviet equipment and weaponry.

On January 25, when President Obama stated at a news conference in New Delhi, India that the aggression by the rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine had Russian backing, Russian equipment, Russian financing, Russian training, and Russian troops--so he finally agreed. It is not something that is debatable or might be happening; it is something that is happening. You can see the horrible things that are going on there, and you can see the reason it is necessary to get this done.

Some time ago, back when Carl Levin was still here--he is retired, and he did such a great job as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for so many years when I was the ranking Republican on the Committee on Armed Services. At that time, a year ago in October, we wrote the following in the Washington Post:

We believe that the United States should begin providing defensive weapons that would help Ukraine defend its territory. Such weapons could include anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian-provided armored personnel carriers, ammunition, vehicles and secure communications equipment. This would present no threat to Russia unless its forces launch further aggression against Ukraine. In other words, these weapons are lethal, but not provocative because they are defensive.

That came from Carl Levin and me. This is back before we knew the results of the parliamentary election that was so successful and so complementary to the West.

This has been long overdue. There is no one who disagrees with it, and even the President recognizes they have the equipment and we are not doing the job we should be doing.

So, with that, I am going to introduce S. 452, and we are going to ask for cosponsors to come down and speak on this topic. We have quite a long list of cosponsors.

It doesn't bother me if other Members want to introduce like resolutions because we need to get something passed. We need to raise the visibility so the people of America know this is not just going on in Syria and some of these other countries, but it is also in the country of one of our very best friends worldwide, and that best friend is the Ukraine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing a bill today because there is something going on that people are not as aware of as they should be.

We don't have a better friend than King Abdullah in Jordan. I have been pleased to get to know him as a personal friend as well as a friend of America. I was over there with him last October. We were on the Syrian border looking at all the things that are going on right now with ISIL and ISIS, and it has been a real tragedy.

Last week King Abdullah was in the United States for the National Prayer Breakfast. While he was here, there were several of us who were with him when he got the news that his friend and relative, an F-16 pilot, had been caged, soaked with gasoline, and burned alive.

America and the whole world saw what happened and asked: What kind of monsters are these people who are doing this over there? They are beheading children and pregnant women and burning people alive. Yet this is going on. People have to understand this.

They do understand it in terms of ISIS. But what I want to share with you, and introduce legislation to correct, is that it is not just happening there, it is also happening in Ukraine right now.

I happened to be in Ukraine in late October of this year. I went over there because they were having their parliamentary elections at the time. Ukraine has been such a good friend to us--not just Poroshenko, but the rest of the administration that went through the parliamentary election has also been a friend.

Let's keep in mind that the Presidential elections were way back in May. This last election was the parliamentary election, and we were there to see what was happening in the Ukraine.

In the Ukraine they have a constitutional requirement that you cannot have a seat in Parliament unless you have 5 percent of the vote. This is the first time, after the vote when we were there in October, that they had a parliamentary election and not one Communist got a seat in Parliament. This is the first time in 96 years that not one Communist has a seat in the Parliament.

As bad as things are with ISIS, I suggest that what is going on--and I only preface what I am saying so I can demonstrate what a good friend Poroshenko and the leadership of the Ukraine is to the United States. We have the Russians in there with the separatists doing horrible things--things that are just as bad as what is taking place in Syria with ISIS and in other places.

To demonstrate this--it is not a very fun thing to look at, but you have to understand what is happening. These are T-72 tanks. Putin keeps saying: We don't have any Russians in there with the separatists. It is not us. We are not doing it.

Well, here they are. These are the pictures we brought back with us. All those tanks are lined up within Ukraine, and that is clearly what they are.

If you want to see how brutal Putin and everyone else is--it is not something anyone enjoys looking at, but you have to know this is going on. The tragedies that are taking place in Syria and in other parts of the world are also taking place in Ukraine.

This is a picture of the murders and torture that have been taking place there. These people have been disembodied, their heads cut off. These are Ukrainian citizens. They are legal citizens. They are the ones whom Putin and the rest of them are fighting. For that reason, I have introduced legislation to require that the United States offer the weaponry.

By the way, I was making a presentation about this issue and Senator

McCain was there. He said: If you look at all of those tanks, they don't have one piece of equipment that could offer a defense against those tanks. What have we been giving them? We have been giving them MREs and blankets.

When Poroshenko was here in the United States, he made a speech to both Houses. He said that ``one can't win the war with blankets. . . . Even more, we cannot keep the peace with a blanket.'' In other words, we have to share the very best defensive weapons or weapons that can be used offensively with them. They cannot be left naked there when facing this kind of abuse. We know that shortly after the heavily armed Russian soldiers invaded and took control of the Crimean region in February of 2014, the Ukrainian Government and its people faced and sustained a deadly force from heavily armed rebel separatists who were equipped, trained, and supported by the Russian Federation. We have seen pictures of that. This is the first time we have shown pictures that document, No. 1, that the equipment came from Russia and Putin, and, No. 2, the type of things they are doing over there.

We passed a law last year that said we would give defensive weaponry to the Ukrainians, but it fell short because of one thing--it was prescriptive. It said what kind of equipment it would be.

The bill I am introducing today does two things. It offers the equipment we can give them with no restrictions whatsoever, and secondly, it does something else I think is very significant, and that is we require the President to come up with a strategy. People always say: Well, the President doesn't have a strategy against ISIS. It is true he doesn't have one, and it is deplorable that he doesn't have one. He also doesn't have a strategy for Ukraine. Without a strategy, it is not going to work.

Last week we had a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee. It was kind of funny because we had people from the past. We had George Shultz, Madeleine Albright, and Henry Kissinger. We were talking about the Ukraine at that time and talked about offering some equipment we thought should go there, and they said: Well, you have to do that, but you can't just send them equipment. You have to specifically demand a strategy. In this bill we are saying to the President of the United States to not only send over equipment but we need to also provide a strategy we can massage as time goes on.

On February 2, 2015, eight of the former senior ranking diplomatic and military officials testified. They included the former U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, Steven Pifer; former Under Secretary of Defense Michele Flournoy; former Supreme Allied Commander ADM James Stavridis, and former Deputy Commander to the U.S. Command, Gen. Charles Wald. They all served under both Republican and Democratic administrations. They released a nonpartisan report calling on President Obama to provide Ukraine with lethal weaponry, and this is what we talked about in the bill. They encouraged other NATO countries to do the same, particularly those that possess and used former Soviet equipment and weaponry.

On January 25, when President Obama stated at a news conference in New Delhi, India that the aggression by the rebel separatists in eastern Ukraine had Russian backing, Russian equipment, Russian financing, Russian training, and Russian troops--so he finally agreed. It is not something that is debatable or might be happening; it is something that is happening. You can see the horrible things that are going on there, and you can see the reason it is necessary to get this done.

Some time ago, back when Carl Levin was still here--he is retired, and he did such a great job as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee for so many years when I was the ranking Republican on the Committee on Armed Services. At that time, a year ago in October, we wrote the following in the Washington Post:

We believe that the United States should begin providing defensive weapons that would help Ukraine defend its territory. Such weapons could include anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian-provided armored personnel carriers, ammunition, vehicles and secure communications equipment. This would present no threat to Russia unless its forces launch further aggression against Ukraine. In other words, these weapons are lethal, but not provocative because they are defensive.

That came from Carl Levin and me. This is back before we knew the results of the parliamentary election that was so successful and so complementary to the West.

This has been long overdue. There is no one who disagrees with it, and even the President recognizes they have the equipment and we are not doing the job we should be doing.

So, with that, I am going to introduce S. 452, and we are going to ask for cosponsors to come down and speak on this topic. We have quite a long list of cosponsors.

It doesn't bother me if other Members want to introduce like resolutions because we need to get something passed. We need to raise the visibility so the people of America know this is not just going on in Syria and some of these other countries, but it is also in the country of one of our very best friends worldwide, and that best friend is the Ukraine.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.