[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 122 (Wednesday, July 19, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4074-S4077]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                              Fossil Fuels

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, some really big things are happening right 
now that are happening under the radar; people are not aware of them. 
One of them is the fact that the Obama war on fossil fuels is 
officially over now and good things are happening.
  This coincides with a time when we have a shale revolution. We have a 
situation where we are actually reviving an industry that had been 
pushed for the last 8 years. Oil and gas accounts for over 5 percent of 
the jobs in the entire country and accounts for over $1 trillion in 
economic impact in the U.S. gross domestic product.
  In my State of Oklahoma, the industry directly employs nearly 150,000 
people, and each of those jobs support more than two additional jobs in 
the State. Thanks to the election of President Trump, help has arrived.
  There are some very vocal sectors in America that want to put the 
fossil fuel industry out of business. We know that. They are out there. 
They are alive and well, and the attacks will keep coming. While most 
inroads were made toward that goal during the Obama administration, the 
environmental extremists will continue to use our court system and the 
media to ensure that the war on fossil fuels continues, putting 
American jobs and the economy at risk.
  Back in Oklahoma--it is kind of funny--I have an established policy 
for the last 20 years that every year, at the end of every week, I will 
either--if I don't have to be in Afghanistan or someplace else--I am 
always back in the State, never here.
  I have been in aviation for many years so I get one of my airplanes 
and travel around the State and talk to people--real people. People 
don't understand this because you don't get logical questions asked or 
responded to here in Washington. They will say, for example--and this 
happened early in the Obama administration. They would come up to me 
and say: Explain this to me, Senator Inhofe. We have a President who 
has a war on fossil fuels, trying to do away with fossil fuels. He 
doesn't like nuclear either. Yet nuclear and fossil fuels, which is oil 
and gas, account for 89 percent of the energy it takes to run this 
machine called America. So if he is successful, how do you run the 
machine called America? The answer is that you can't.

  With the election of a Republican-led Congress and a Republican in 
the White House, we should be working together to address the concerns 
of the industries that provide cheap, reliable fuel for American 
energy. Unfortunately, as what always seems to be the case when we are 
in power, Republicans can't seem to get together and work toward a 
common goal, dividing themselves over some of the issues. Healthcare is 
no better example.
  But the threat against the industry and fossil fuels should be a 
priority of all Republicans and Democrats, whether or not they come 
from a State dependent on these resources for jobs, because cheaper and 
more reliable energy is an issue that affects all Americans, helping 
them to get to work, to heat their homes, and to cook their meals. Yet 
we already have examples of Republicans not working together to defeat 
threats to our energy sector.
  We only had one CRA vote fail, and that was the one on the BLM 
venting and flaring rule. It was held up by some of the Republicans who 
want to expand a mandate they already have, and that is the renewable 
fuels standard. It was ultimately defeated by another Republican. Now, 
the oil and gas industry considered this to be one of the real key 
regulations that was imposed by

[[Page S4075]]

President Obama and that needed to be released.
  If anyone is interested, in my office we have accumulated all 47 of 
the regulations this administration either is in the process of doing 
away with or has already done away with, and these are the things 
putting people out of business.
  So some good things are happening right now. We know that programs 
were created at the time in our history when we were dependent on 
foreign oil or when our energy production at home was receding, and 
that all has changed. Some might not be old enough to remember. I am.
  Back in the early 1970s, OPEC in the Middle East retaliated against 
us for helping Israel against Egypt and Syria in the Yom Kippur 
invasion by imposing an oil embargo. This resulted in long lines of 
cars at the pumps and in rationing. It was pretty traumatic. In the 
late 1970s, unrest in the Middle East again disrupted the oil market, 
once again causing shortages and prices to skyrocket.
  There is the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standards 
program, as we call them. The CAFE standards program was created during 
this time of uncertainty in the oil and gas market, when we were 
dependent on oil from the Middle East. But the bleak future we were 
facing at that time didn't happen. It wasn't the end of the world as 
they said it was going to be. In fact, just the opposite happened. The 
United States is no longer dependent on foreign sources for oil and gas 
and is in the position to export our resources and provide for better 
security for us here.
  I was very proud of the President the other day when he was in Poland 
and he made a speech with Putin right there. He talked about the fact 
that we are going to start exporting our oil and gas--and we are 
already doing it now--to some of these former satellite countries of 
the Soviet Union and other countries where they want to import from us 
but Iran and Russia have had a lock on the exports and so they were 
forced to be dependent on them. That is not the case anymore.
  I would say, parenthetically, to anybody who believes this President 
was trying to cater to Putin at any time, that he stood up and said: We 
are going to be the ones exporting, instead of Russia, when their 
economy is dependent upon their exports. That is actually happening 
right now.
  The cost of cars went up, even though that didn't work. The CAFE 
standards were by government officials who thought they could force the 
public into smaller cars, more mileage, and all that, but that is not 
the way the American people responded. The cost of cars did go up 
$3,800 per vehicle from their standards put together for 2016. This was 
significant when it happened, but it didn't change the behavior of the 
American people. So any small benefit of new standards estimated at 
0.007 degrees by 2100 is outweighed by the fact that consumers are 
doing something different than the government predicted--I am happy 
about that--which always seems to be the case when the government 
starts messing with industry.
  None of this touches the effect the California waiver has on the fuel 
economy debate and the consumer market. If California and the States 
that have followed had their way, liquid fuels would be phased out 
altogether and consumer demand and prices wouldn't really matter.
  Another way Congress has tried to manipulate the fuel market when the 
energy future was uncertain is through the renewable fuels standards. 
This is not a partisan issue because it is really more of a 
geographical issue. People up in the core area are very strongly 
supportive of the renewable fuels standards. Some other people are not. 
So it is not a partisan thing, as most of the things we talk about on 
the floor of the Senate are.
  In 2005--and then expanded in 2007, despite my best efforts--the RFS 
was created to address decreased energy production at home and to 
decrease carbon dioxide emissions. However, with the shale revolution, 
our dependency on foreign energy stopped. The more we learn about corn 
ethanol, the more we know RFS has not been the environmental solution 
as sold to us.
  In case we forgot--it has been a while ago--Al Gore was the guy who 
invented ethanol. This was supposed to solve all the problems out 
there, until Al Gore realized that the environmental community, which 
motivated him to get involved with this issue, said: No, that is the 
worst thing in the world for the environment. So he had to back down.
  Land is increasingly set aside for the production of corn to feed the 
mandate, and the more corn that is diverted to ethanol production, the 
less there is for our food consumption and for ranchers who need corn 
to feed their livestock, making the cost of our food rise. That is 
another major issue nobody talks about anymore.

  Fuels with corn ethanol are less efficient than gasoline diesel by 27 
percent. So while consumers may pay less at the pump than conventional 
fuel, they are coming back to the pump more often, and the math works 
so that it costs them more.
  This also translates into more greenhouse gases being released into 
the atmosphere to make up for the efficiency lost in using corn 
ethanol. Oklahomans know this and demand for clear gas remains high.
  This is very common in Oklahoma. I actually took this picture myself. 
People know, No. 1, that it is bad for the environment; No. 2, it is 
not good for mileage; and, No. 3, it destroys small engines. So in 
Oklahoma, this is what you see in almost every community. They know the 
demand for clear gas--gas which doesn't have any additives--remains 
high in my State. Retailers in Oklahoma continue to advertise it.
  They also don't like corn ethanol because they understand it is not 
good for their engines. We heard testimony from people in the small-
engine business, such as outboard motors and those things, talking 
about how they are quite often sued and then have to defend the thing 
because the damage was actually caused by the ethanol as opposed to the 
manufacturer.
  Ethanol supporters claim the warning labels on the pump are 
sufficient to alert customers, but studies show consumers make fueling 
choices by price, and they have ruined boats and small engines, causing 
manufacturers and retailers to invest in a nationwide campaign to 
prevent misfueling.
  Furthermore, the mandate is not living up to its promises of 
advancing biofuels. In fact, over the last 5 years, the EPA has had to 
lower the total renewable volume requirements to amounts below 
statutory requirements because advanced biofuels have not been 
developed in the capacity drafters of the RFS had hoped, even with a 
mandate. To comply with the RFS, we have become reliant on foreign 
imports of soybeans and ethanol from South America to count toward the 
RFS--the exact opposite of what the mandate was supposed to prevent in 
the first place.
  Meanwhile, supporters of the RFS want more. They want a waiver for 
even higher ethanol levels in gas. Currently, gas with 15 percent 
ethanol or higher can't be sold during the hot summer months because of 
its negative effect on ambient air quality. Ethanol supporters want a 
waiver now so that E15 and higher can be sold year round. Right now, it 
can't be sold during the hot summer months, for obvious reasons. With 
all the problems with RFS, we should not give them this waiver without 
addressing the larger issues with the program. Between CAFE and RFS, 
the fuel industry has had its hands full. But the war is being waged on 
all fronts, and I will continue to work to make sure that doesn't 
happen.
  There are no guarantees that the next administration after President 
Trump will not return to the ``regulate to death'' plans of the Obama 
administration. I am not talking about the war on fossil fuels. We need 
to work together to address the regulations that we were not able to 
address with the CRA process. By the way, the CRA process, the 
Congressional Review Act process, is one of the two ways that you can 
minimize or eliminate onerous regulations. It has been very effective. 
The mandate was the only one that has not been successful. All the rest 
of the CRAs have been successful. We went 20 years, using it 
effectively once in 20 years, and we have used it 47 times now. So 
times have changed.
  We are going to work with our colleagues to get as much as we can on 
any legislation that looks like it might be moving both in my committee 
of jurisdiction and on the Senate floor. Any

[[Page S4076]]

regulation that is a threat to the energy sector should be addressed so 
we don't find ourselves in the situation of hoping for favorable court 
rulings again, which is what we relied on before.
  There are many regulations that threaten the availability of cheaper 
energy, and I will be pursuing any means available to address them. As 
for the waters of the United States rule, when we talk to the farmers 
and the ranchers around the country and ask what the major problems 
are, they say: It is nothing found in the farm bill; it is the 
overregulation by the EPA. Which one regulation do they single out as 
being the most serious one? It is the waters of the United States.
  In my State of Oklahoma, the Panhandle is a very arid area. If we 
change the jurisdiction from the States to the Federal Government, I am 
sure it will become some type of a serious problem with all of the 
water that is not out there. We have the waters of the United States, 
the Clean Power Plan, the EPA, and the BLM methane rules, and fixing 
compliance issues with the most recent NAAQ standards.
  I will also be pursuing ways to amend the RFS and CAFE programs--from 
rescinding the California waiver that drives CAFE issues and 
harmonizing the EPA and DOT rulemaking to reforms of the RFS program, 
including requiring that any E15 or higher blend be tied to the 
commercial availability of cellulosic ethanol, or requiring that 
certain criteria be reached before an E15 waiver is triggered.
  There are many ways in which I will be looking to address the issues 
I have outlined here today, and I look forward to working with my 
colleagues to ensure that not only is the environment protected but 
that the entire fuel industry is, as well, and that we have the 
available fuel.
  The latest battle on fossil fuels was won with the election of 
President Trump, but the war is still being waged. I will continue to 
defend that industry and any industry that employs that number of 
people and provides cheap energy for Americans.
  Again, the question that I got back in Oklahoma--where the real 
people are, I might add--if the Obama administration had been 
successful--and we are dependent upon the very thing he was trying to 
do away with for 89 percent of the industry--how do we run the machine 
called America? The answer is, we can't.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, our Nation's courts are supposed to be 
bastions of justice. They are intended to be run by men and women of 
sober contemplation and scholarly reflection, with the temperament to 
put aside their own personal feelings and biases and consider the facts 
of the case before them in order to make the best judgments possible; 
men and women committed to a full and fair judiciary--a judiciary that 
respects our constitutional rights.
  I am sorry to say that the nominee for the Sixth Circuit Court of 
Appeals does not meet those standards. This man is unfit to serve on 
the bench. As revealed by his own words in a series of blog posts 
written under a pseudonym, John Bush does not have the temperament or 
the impartiality to sit on a court where jurists such as William Howard 
Taft and many eminent others have sat.
  Mr. Bush himself acknowledged during his confirmation hearing that 
``many of the blog posts used flippant or intemperate language''--
something I believe is unbecoming of an individual nominated to sit on 
the Federal bench. But it wasn't just flippant language. It wasn't just 
intemperate language. He wrote in an extreme rightwing, partisan 
fashion. His confirmation would threaten women's rights and the rights 
of LGBTQ Americans. It would threaten Americans' voting rights. It 
would threaten issue after issue, topic after topic, of the rights 
embedded in our Constitution.
  Let's take a few moments to look at his words and his record. Let's 
look first at women's rights and the extreme views he has held on this 
issue.
  In 1993, he filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court appeal defending 
the Virginia Military Institute's policy of not admitting women, 
stating that the military-style atmosphere of the institute ``does not 
appear to be compatible with the somewhat different developmental needs 
of most young women.'' He was basically indicating that young women 
cannot handle the same rigors as men or serve in the same capacities as 
men--certainly a myth that has been shattered time and time again. He 
is locked into an 1800s view of the world. I know that my daughter, I 
know that her friends, I know that my colleagues who serve in the 
Chamber certainly don't believe that a woman is incapable of serving in 
the same roles in which a man can serve.
  There was a 2008 blog post Mr. Bush wrote conflating a woman's legal, 
constitutional right to choose with slavery. He wrote:

       Slavery and abortion rely on similar reasoning and activist 
     justices at the U.S. Supreme Court . . . . first in the Dred 
     Scott decision, and later in Roe.

  It is hard to imagine how an individual takes the extraordinary human 
condition of slavery and the lack of freedom involved in that and 
compares it to a woman making decisions, with the advice of her own 
doctor, about her own body. One is slavery, and one is freedom--clearly 
not the same thing. How could any woman walking into his courtroom 
believe she would get a fair hearing with his extreme anti-women views?
  For that matter, Mr. Bush's words and actions call into question 
whether he would abide by and uphold precedent that is far more recent; 
that is, the rights of the LGBTQ community in America. The Supreme 
Court declared in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples enjoy the 
fundamental right to marry, just like any other couple. Yet Mr. Bush 
has repeatedly demonstrated insensitivity and contempt for the rights 
of the LGBTQ community.

  In 2005, he gave a speech to a private club in Louisville. He 
apparently wanted to bond with his audience by saying something about 
the town of Louisville--something he found positive. So he chose to use 
a quote related to Hunter Thompson, who described Louisville in a quote 
that uses a derogatory term for gay men. In the piece, Thompson recites 
the words of a man named Jimbo, who said to him over a glass of double 
Old Fitz: ``I come here every year, and let me tell you one thing I've 
learned--this is no town to give people the impression you are some 
kind of. . . .'' Fill in the derogatory word--the pejorative for gay 
men. Of all the possible quotes this individual could choose to create 
a bond between himself and his audience in Louisville, he chooses to 
attack the LGBTQ community.
  Now, he could have chosen any of a number of quotes. A member of my 
team did a very quick look. In moments, they found a quote from the 
great frontiersman Daniel Boone, saying: ``Soon after, I returned home 
to my family, with the determination to bring them as soon as possible 
to live in Kentucky, which I esteemed a second paradise.'' That would 
be a nice thing to describe about Kentucky--about connecting to your 
audience in Louisville rather than describing the characteristics of 
hatred and discrimination.
  That is where this nominee comes from--full of his vile opinions 
about women and about a great spectrum of people in our Nation. So much 
for opportunity for all in the United States of America.
  The following year, he coauthored a paper criticizing the Kentucky 
Supreme Court decision regarding the right to privacy, specifically 
focusing on LGBTQ communities.
  Then, a couple of years later, with the State Department updating the 
passport applications, he ridiculed the effort to accommodate LGBTQ in 
one of his posts. At a time when we should be continuing to push our 
country forward toward ensuring that the community enjoys the full 
measure of equality they are entitled to in our Constitution and under 
the 1964 Civil Rights Act, confirming John Bush to be a Federal judge 
would certainly walk back many of the gains so many have made.

[[Page S4077]]

  Then there is his opinion of money in politics. Our Constitution 
starts with those beautiful three words, ``We the People,'' not ``We 
the powerful who can spend billions of dollars in third-party campaigns 
to have a megaphone the size of a stadium sound system.'' No. Jefferson 
said, for us to really secure the will of the people, the individuals 
have to have essentially an equal voice.
  This individual who is before us today doesn't like that whole 
concept of equal voice. He doesn't like the mission statement of the 
Constitution of the United States of America. He wants government by 
and for the powerful and the privileged and nothing less. Therefore, he 
should go and serve in some foreign country that doesn't have a vision 
of government of, by, and for the people. He certainly doesn't belong 
in our court system in the United States of America.
  There is so much more that people have described, including his 
writing in support of the ``lock her up'' chants at last summer's 
Republican convention, his trafficking in birtherism, and more and 
more.
  I will be vehemently opposing this confirmation. I urge my colleagues 
to do the same. Let's fight for the vision. Let's fight for the ``We 
the People'' mission on which our Constitution was founded and that we 
have the responsibility to uphold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, so far this year President Trump and 
Senate Republicans have selected a long list of Wall Street insiders, 
corporate CEOs, lobbyists, and radical rightwing ideologues to run the 
Federal Government, but the Republicans haven't stopped there. They are 
also working to fill vacancies on the courts with the same kind of 
people--nominees who reflect pro-corporate, radically conservative 
views that will threaten the principle of equal justice under law.
  That is not coincidence. Powerful rightwing groups have had their 
sights set on the courts for decades, and over the past 8 years they 
have launched a relentless campaign to capture our courts. During the 
Obama administration, a key part of their strategy was stopping fair, 
mainstream nominees with diverse, professional backgrounds from 
becoming judges. Our Federal courts suffered the consequences. 
Vacancies sat open for months. They sat open for years, and cases piled 
up on the desks of overworked judges.
  Now, with President Trump in the White House and Senate Republicans 
are in control of the Senate, those powerful interests see an 
unprecedented opportunity to reshape our courts in ways that will 
benefit billionaires and giant corporations for decades to come. Now 
they see their chance to stack the courts with radical, rightwing, pro-
Big Business conservatives.
  John Bush, President Trump's nominee to sit on the Sixth Circuit 
Court of Appeals, is one of those radical, rightwing, pro-business 
conservatives. Mr. Bush is not just a member of the ultraconservative 
Federalist Society. He is the cofounder and 20-year president of the 
Louisville chapter. During his career, he has earned a reputation for 
fighting for the big guys. For example, Mr. Bush supports weakening our 
campaign finance laws so giant corporations and wealthy individuals can 
flood our elections with unlimited contributions and buy the officials 
they want. I believe Mr. Bush's pro-corporate views call his 
qualifications to the Federal bench into question. I do not understand 
how he can be fair and impartial when his billionaire buddies show up 
in court.
  My concern about Mr. Bush runs much deeper. He has demonstrated a 
level of disrespect for other people that flatly disqualifies him for a 
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Here is just a glimpse of 
what the man nominated to be a Federal judge has written and said in 
public:
  In a blog post, he called for then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to be 
gagged.
  In another blog post, Mr. Bush mocked policies that recognize same-
sex parents saying that ``[i]t's just like the government to decide it 
needs to decide something like which parent is number one and which 
parent is number two.''
  In a speech in Louisville, he repeated a quote from a late journalist 
saying: ``I come here every year, let me tell you one thing I've 
learned--this is no town to be giving people the impression you're some 
kind of. . . .'' He finished the quote with an anti-gay slur that 
begins with an ``f.''
  There it is: dismissive, demeaning, and downright ugly. If that word 
makes you furious, or if you believe that term is hurtful, then think 
about what it means that this is the man President Trump has put 
forward to be a Federal judge to sit in judgment on others. Whatever 
his other qualifications, Mr. Bush has aggressively and conclusively 
disqualified himself to be a judge. I think Mr. Bush knows that.
  In his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Bush was not keen 
to defend what he said. When asked about those hateful statements, he 
ducked and dodged like a prize fighter. He played that old game we have 
seen before--the ``I promise to be a fair and impartial judge if I am 
confirmed'' game. He is selling, and I am not buying. Mr. Bush should 
be embarrassed to defend those statements. They are shameful.
  Senator McConnell might defend this man, calling those statements, as 
he did, ``personal views about politics,'' but I call them hateful 
views that disqualify him for a lifetime appointment as a Federal 
judge. Yes, decent, reasonable people can disagree on policy, and 
decent, reasonable people can disagree on legal interpretation, but 
decent, reasonable people should not disagree on basic norms that all 
judges in our Federal court should abide by. Anyone who thinks it is OK 
to use anti-gay slurs and to tell anti-LGBTQ jokes is disqualified to 
be a Federal judge, period.
  No Senator--Republican or Democratic--should be willing to confirm 
such a man. Our courts have one duty: to dispense equal justice under 
the law. No one can have confidence that Mr. Bush could fulfill such a 
task, and no Senator should be willing to give Mr. Bush a seat on the 
court of appeals of the United States of America.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________