S.Hrg.119-198

1[Senate Hearing 119-198]2[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]34                                                        S. Hrg. 119-19856                       ENTER THE DRAGON	CHINA AND7                       THE LEFT'S LAWFARE AGAINST8                       AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE910=======================================================================1112                                HEARING1314                               BEFORE THE1516                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL COURTS,17                       OVERSIGHT, AGENCY ACTION,18                           AND FEDERAL RIGHTS1920                                 OF THE2122                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY23                          UNITED STATES SENATE2425                    ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS2627                             FIRST SESSION2829                               __________3031                             JUNE 25, 20253233                               __________3435                           Serial No. J-119-283637                               __________3839         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary4041[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]4243                          www.judiciary.senate.gov44                            www.govinfo.gov4546                               __________4748                   U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE4961-887                  WASHINGTON : 20255051-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------5253                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY5455                  CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman56LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,57JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member58MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island59TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota60JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware61THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut62JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii63MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey64ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California65KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont66ASHLEY MOODY, Florida                ADAM B. SCHIFF, California6768             Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director69         Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director7071              Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight,72                   Agency Action, and Federal Rights7374                         TED CRUZ, Texas, Chair75LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island,76MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                     Ranking Member77THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut78JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii79ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California80                                     PETER WELCH, Vermont8182                Michael Berry,  Republican Chief Counsel83                 Claire Kim,  Democratic Chief Counsel8485                           C O N T E N T S8687                              ----------8889                           OPENING STATEMENTS9091                                                                   Page9293Cruz, Hon. Ted...................................................     194Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     795Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon.........................................     49697                               WITNESSES9899Arkush, David....................................................    13100    Prepared statement...........................................    33101    Responses to written questions...............................    65102Kobach, Kris.....................................................    10103    Prepared statement...........................................    44104Walter, Scott....................................................    14105    Prepared statement...........................................    51106107                                APPENDIX108109Items submitted for the record...................................    79110111                       ENTER THE DRAGON-CHINA AND112                       THE LEFT'S LAWFARE AGAINST113                       AMERICAN ENERGY DOMINANCE114115                              ----------116117                        WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 2025118119                      United States Senate,120 Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency121                        Action, and Federal Rights,122                                Committee on the Judiciary,123                                                    Washington, DC.124    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice at 2:32 p.m., in125Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ted Cruz, Chair126of the Subcommittee, presiding.127    Present: Senators Cruz [presiding], Durbin, Whitehouse,128Blumenthal, and Welch.129130              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,131             A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS132133    Chair Cruz. Good afternoon. I hereby call to order this134hearing, Enter the Dragon-China and the Left's Lawfare Against135American Energy Dominance. We're witnessing right now a136systematic campaign against American energy. There is a137coordinated assault by the radical left, backed and paid for by138the Chinese Communist Party to seize control of our courts, to139weaponize litigation against U.S. energy producers.140    All in order to undermine American energy dominance. At141stake, is a lot more than an industry. Our energy sector is the142engine of American prosperity, the lifeblood of our industrial143power, our national security, and our geopolitical leverage. If144American energy is under attack, so is American security and145American independence. The campaign against American Energy is146a three-pronged assault.147    First, foreign money from entities tied to the Chinese148Communist Party flows into the United States to bankroll149climate advocacy groups who litigate against American Energy.150Second, activist lawyers flood our courts with lawsuits151designed not to win policy debates but to bankrupt energy152producers and to dismantle energy infrastructure through sheer153attrition.154    And third, the judiciary itself is being quietly captured155and brainwashed as left wing nonprofits host closed door156trainings that indoctrinate judges to adopt the ideological157goals of the climate lawfare machine. The first prong of this158coordinated campaign is a strategic alliance, a cozy financial159partnership between leftist, billionaires, radical160environmental organizations, and the Chinese Communist Party.161    [Poster is displayed.]162    One of the primary vehicles for this alliance is Energy163Foundation China, which has funneled upwards of $12 million to164U.S. based climate advocacy groups since 2020. And this money165isn't going to tree planting campaigns or to science fairs.166It's flowing directly to aggressive litigation outfits like the167Natural Resources Defense Council, the Rocky Mountain168Institute, and the World Resources Institute.169    Organizations that routinely file lawsuits trying to block170pipelines, trying to ban gas powered vehicles, and trying to171bankrupt oil and gas companies. On paper Energy Foundation172China's goals may sound benign. Support for clean coal,173electric vehicle and global decarbonization. But that raises174the obvious question.175    If this is truly about reducing emissions, why isn't China176investing that money in reducing its own pollution? China is177the number one polluter on planet earth. Communist China emits178more carbon than the United States and Europe combined. The179answer is simple because this is not about climate. It is about180global energy dominance and control and it gets worse.181    The man at the helm of Energy Foundation China, Ji Zou, is182not a neutral administrator. He is a former senior official in183China's National Development and Reform Commission. The agency184responsible for writing the CCP's 5-year plans, coordinating185industrial expansion and steering national energy policy186between 2000 and 2009.187    And again from 2012 to 2015, Professor Zou served as a key188member of China's official climate negotiation team, including189during the run up to the Paris Agreement, a deal that gave190China a free pass to increase emissions until 2030 while191demanding immediate costly reductions from the United States.192    That was not an accident, that was not a bug, that was the193purpose and he is not the only one. Energy Foundation. China's194senior leadership includes other alumni of the Chinese Ministry195of Ecology and Environment and affiliated State-run196institutions. This is not remotely a grassroots nonprofit. It197is a foreign policy weapon disguised as philanthropy, run by198Chinese Communist Party operatives.199    Flush with funding, the second prong of this campaign is a200legal barrage aimed at bankrupting the American energy sector201through a coordinated onslaught of lawsuits. And if this feels202familiar, it should. It's the same playbook the left used to203try to destroy President Trump. They couldn't beat him at the204ballot box so they turned to the courts for indictments, dozens205of civil suits, fringe legal theories given legitimacy by rogue206activist judges.207    That wasn't about justice, it was about power. Now they're208applying that same strategy to an entire sector of the American209economy. Over 30 lawsuits have been filed in at least 15210Democrat-run jurisdictions, including by 12 States targeting211oil producers and gas producers and coal producers. Climate212lawfare activists have infiltrated American cities and States213convincing them to sue American energy companies.214    Over 24 pending suits brought by our own State and local215governments manipulated by the Chinese Communist government and216funded by left-wing groups. And all of them together are217crippling American energy. These lawsuits use creative theories218like public nuisance, climate superfund, consumer protection219but their objective is clear. Cripple the fossil fuel industry220through legal attrition and the damages are staggering.221    One suit seeks $1.15 billion. Another demands $3.5 billion.222The days of Dr. Evil demanding $1 million are long behind us.223These are not good faith disputes. These are weapons. Just in224fiscal year 2023, the leading climate law fair groups, not even225all of them, just the leading groups, raked in close to $500226million from U.S. energy companies. That's $500 million227stripped from our energy independence.228    [Poster is displayed.]229    Driving these lawsuits is Sher Edling, LLP, a private230plaintiff's firm that has filed more than two dozen suits.231They're not paid by their clients. They're bankrolled by dark232money empires like the New Venture Fund and the Tides233Foundation. Groups that launder anonymous donations into234political litigation. This matters because our domestic energy235industry supports over 8.5 million jobs, jobs that these236zealots want to destroy.237    Our fossil fuels power 84 percent of our national energy.238If these suits succeed, here's what the American public will239face. Skyrocketing energy costs, a weakened, an unreliable240power grid and an historic collapse in American energy241production. And the biggest winner in all of this, China, who's242paying the bills. This is not litigation. It is strategic243sabotage disguised in legalese, executed with precision and244aims squarely at the foundation of American strength.245    The third prong of this strategy is perhaps the most246insidious because it strikes at the very heart of the rule of247law, judicial capture. It is being carried out by one248organization with near total control over climate related249judicial training, the Environmental Law Institute, and its250climate judiciary project. If a Federal judge or a State judge251is receiving ``climate science education today,'' chances are252overwhelming that it is coming from ELI. The group has253established a defacto monopoly on climate rating related254instruction for the judiciary.255    [Poster is displayed.]256    [Points at poster.]257    They've, ``Trained over 2000 judges.'' They claim to be258neutral. They claim to be science driven but what they are259doing is ex parte indoctrination, pressuring judges to set260aside the rule of law and rule instead according to a261predetermined political narrative. Left wing bankrollers like262the Hewlett Foundation and the Freedom Together Foundation263Fund, CJP. They fund CJP to train judges, so, ``Train in264climate science and make them agreeable to creative climate265litigation tactics.''266    Then these left wing bankrollers turn around and fund the267climate litigators who will bring these bogus cases before268those same judges that they've just indoctrinated. This is like269paying the players to play and paying the umpire to call the270shots the way you want them. On April 1 of this year, in my271capacity as Chairman of the Commerce Committee. I sent a letter272to the Environmental Law Institute, raising deep concerns about273this program.274    We have also initiated oversight requests with Federal275agencies like NOAA, whose internal documents show a cozy276relationship with ELI and its activist curriculum. And here's277what we've learned. The Climate Judiciary Project tells judges278that, ``The consequences of a business-as-usual scenario would279be catastrophic.'' That's called propaganda. And yet it goes280on, it encourages the judiciary to view climate litigation as281a, ``Unique opportunity for accountability.''282    It even recommends embracing novel tort theories like283public nuisance to assign liability for greenhouse gas284emissions. Let me ask, is this neutral or is that lobbying285behind closed doors? The materials even applaud pending286lawsuits, praising the Rhode Island AG's case is, ``well-287crafted'' while failing to mention that similar claims have288been dismissed by Federal courts as legally baseless.289    And who funds these baseless CJP trainings? The same dark290money donors who bankrolled the lawsuits themselves. The same291networks that support Sher Edling, LLP. This is not how a292constitutional republic functions. Courts are not supposed to293be laboratories for political activism and judges are not294supposed to be trained by the plaintiff's bar that is receiving295their funding from the Chinese Communist Party.296    What we are witnessing is judicial capture, driven by297ideology, powered by money, and tolerated by far too many. This298three-pronged strategy, foreign funding, mass litigation and299judicial indoctrination is a full spectrum assault on American300energy independence. And while China drills and digs, we sue301and shut down. While China dominates supply chains, we302dismantle our own in court. And while China prepares for energy303dominance, the American left prepares to attack our own304domestic capability.305    Congress has a responsibility to expose the funding306networks, to break the dark money pipelines, to defund the307judicial indoctrination programs and to restore legal308neutrality to the courts. We must protect American energy, not309just on the battlefield but in the courtroom where this war is310being quietly waged. Ranking Member Whitehouse.311312         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,313         A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND314315    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. This hearing is a316perfect display of projection; blaming your adversary for what317you are doing. Dark money, judicial capture, propaganda. Oh my,318the fossil fuel industry would have nothing to do with those319things. The hearing ignores that the fossil fuel industry has320for decades benefited from secret funding to wage war on the321American consumer by making energy more expensive and dirtier,322higher utility bills, worse pollution.323    Let's examine the facts. First, money. The fossil fuel324industry has spent 10 times more on lobbying than environmental325groups and the renewable energy industry combined, that's not326even counting fossil fuel elections spending. Republican and327fossil fuel interests pushed for the citizens' united decision,328allowing unlimited election spending by special interests.329    Second, dark money. My Disclose Act would require330transparency in election spending. We voted on it a half a331dozen times, every time every Republican voted against it.332Third, energy. Renewable energy is now the cheapest form of333energy on the planet. The wind, our sunshine, flowing water and334the earth's own heat are all free and essentially unlimited335fuel sources their price. Again, zero, does not depend on336geopolitical events or international industry cartels beyond337our control. As Republicans hold this hearing today, oil and338gas gasoline prices have climbed in response to strife in the339Middle East.340    As Republicans hold this hearing today, tens of millions of341Americans swelter through a punishing heat wave made both more342likely and more intense by climate change caused by fossil fuel343emissions. So, let's talk about climate change. By damaging344earth's natural systems, climate change costs Americans money,345lots of money.346    I suspect that Americans would be more interested in347tackling climateflation than an unspooling yet another348conspiracy theory from the fossil fuel funded fertile swamp of349Republican fever dreams. Climate change is raising grocery350prices. Coffee, chocolate, sugar, and orange juice are just a351few of the staples whose prices have spiked in response to352floods, droughts, and heat waves made worse by climate change.353    Climate change is raising electricity costs. Heat waves,354hurricanes, wildfires, droughts, and floods, raise generation355and distribution costs, raising Americans' utility bills. Heat356waves force people to consume more electricity. Air357conditioners are running all around Washington today, further358raising consumers' electricity bills.359    And then there's insurance. This is the big one not just360because of the added costs for consumers but because of the361risk that an insurance crisis triggers a deep and lasting362recession. Increasingly frequent and severe wildfires and363storms are making property insurance both unaffordable and364unavailable in many places. Texas had the fourth highest365average homeowners' premium is in the country last year at366around $6,000.367    This year, their projected to increase by another $500. In368Louisiana premiums averaged almost $11,000 last year. In369Florida, they were over $14,000 and those are projected to get370far worse. That's when you can find a company to write371coverage. Last year, as Chair of the Budget Committee, I372investigated how climate change was driving non-renewals, where373your insurance company fires you after you've been a loyal374customer for many years because they can't afford the risk of375your property.376    We found that non-renewals are spiking around the country,377up 278 percent in Florida, 267 percent in Louisiana, 944378percent in Chambers County, Texas. Where insurance becomes379unavailable, it becomes impossible to get a mortgage. No380insurance, no mortgage. Without the ability to get a mortgage381property values crash unless of course your billionaires382swapping mansions back and forth with your excess income.383    Rising insurance premiums on their own also cause home384values to decline and a wide scale crash in coastal and385wildfire prone home values is likely to trigger a larger386economic meltdown like we saw in 2008. I'm not the only one387saying this. An economist cover story last year predicted a $25388trillion hit to the global real estate market, the world's389largest asset class.390    Earlier this year, Fed Chair Powell told the Senate Banking391Committee that in 10 to 15 years it'll be impossible to get392insurance or a mortgage in entire regions of the country. It's393already hitting home. I'll share a few articles for the record394for the Houston Chronicle, inside the costly new reality of395ensuring a home in Texas.396    Map, see where extreme weather is pushing up home insurance397costs in Texas and the U.S. Houston Chronicle again, Texas has398a home insurance crisis. These four charts show how it's399getting worse. How much is your Texas home worth if you pay a400lot in insurance? Less than you might think. Wouldn't it be401great if colleagues on both sides of the aisle would focus on402this?403    The real danger rather than attempting to project fossil404fuel dark money mischief onto the organizations and elected405governments that are trying to protect Americans from climate406change. Climate change is going to impose immense costs on407State and local governments. That is indisputable. Sea level408rise and other climate related phenomena are already damaging409roads, bridges, ports, water treatment plants and other410essential infrastructure. And it will just get worse. One411emblem of climate change's cost to governments is the proposed412Ike Dike in coastal Texas estimated to cost nearly $60 billion.413Who's going to pay for that?414    Governments faced with costs like that have a dilemma. Who415do you get the money from? Taxpayers? Do you want to go to416taxpayers adding another hit on top of their spiraling417insurance premiums and declining home values? Or do you want to418look at the responsible party, the fossil fuel industry. To put419this into scale, Exxon's profits in the last quarter of last420year were $900 million per day.421    If they had to pay a billion-dollar judgment, they'd be422over it by 6 a.m. the next day. And the oil and gas industry423has known about this problem for more than 60 years. For 3424decades, they hired their own climate scientists and did their425own research and their own scientists confirmed that combusting426fossil fuels would heat the planet with disastrous consequences427for earth's natural systems, that is, for all of us.428    And then armed with that knowledge, they lied. They denied429the science. They obstructed climate action. They constructed430the most complex and mischievous armada of phony front groups431that America has ever seen in order to do so. The suits that432are at issue in this hearing are brought under a variety of433traditional State law tort public nuisance and fraud claims. At434their heart, there about who should pay for the climate damages435bearing down on folks around the country.436    We Democrats believe that the responsible party, the437polluter, the fossil fuel industry should pay. So does Milton438Friedman, by the way, it's Econ 101, that pollution, a negative439externality should be baked into the cost of the product.440Republicans, on the other hand believe that American families441should pay to protect the free to pollute business model of442their favored fossil fuel industry.443    By the way, every time somebody on that side of the aisle444says the word energy in this hearing, what they really mean is445fossil fuel. Every time they say the word energy dominance in446this hearing, what they really mean is fossil fuel dominance.447It's gotten so bad that the Trump administration actually wrote448wind energy and solar energy, which are extremely prevalent and449successful in Texas out of their own definition of energy.450    They're not just violating economic principles; they're451violating the dictionary. That's where we're at. Well, I'm452willing to bet that the American people are with us on this453one.454    Thank you, Chairman.455    Chair Cruz. Well, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for456those effusive words about the great State of Texas. And I457would note that for more than a decade, we have had over 1,000458people a day fleeing blue States such as those represented by459the Democrat Members of this Committee. And coming to Texas, we460right now have over 1,500 people a day coming to Texas because461Texas is where the jobs are and you can raise your family462safely and with prosperity.463    The Ranking Member of the full Committee, Senator Durbin,464has asked to give an opening statement as well. Senator Durbin.465466         OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,467           A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS468469    Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Last year, President470Trump asked a room full of oil industry executives to raise $1471billion for his reelection campaign. And in return, he promised472to reverse the environmental policies of the Biden473administration. Big Oil, Big Fossil Fuel eagerly took Trump up474on his offer.475    They didn't quite make it to $1 billion for his campaign,476but fossil fuel companies spent over $400 million to elect477Donald Trump and other Republicans in the 2024 election cycle.478It seems their money was well spent. In less than 6 months, the479Trump administration has gutted staff at the EPA, moved to480special regulations that ensure clean air and water repeal481regulations that ensure clean air and water, instructed482agencies to stop considering the cost of carbon emissions and483scrubbed even the mention of climate change from government484documents and websites.485    In our audience today are a lot of students and interns,486welcome to Washington. Many of us have been through your487experience. I'm glad you're watching this hearing because this488hearing is all about you and the world you're going to live on.489And whether or not the weather you noticed in June in the490District of Columbia is going to be weather you're going to491notice in May and April as well.492    That's what's at stake here. They say when it comes to heat493in Washington, it isn't the temperature, it's the stupidity,494the stupidity of Congress when it comes to ignoring climate495change, when ignoring what is happening right outside the door.496Who wants to place a bet that the overall temperature on the497earth is not going to go up this year over last year and next498year, over this year, and on and on and on.499    And you're thinking about finishing college, getting a job,500raising a family, owning a home. This is your world. How we can501try to hatch conspiracy theories about the Chinese and God502knows what else. But the bottom line is what are we doing about503it? What are we doing for you about it? So your generation has504a fighting chance to have a place that's habitable and livable.505    I decided about 4 or 5 years ago to take advantage of the506tax credits that were available, put solar panels on your home.507It didn't catch onto my neighborhood. I'm the only one with508solar panels. But let me tell you the reality of the situation.509My electric bill in Springfield, Illinois used to be $120 a510month. It's now 15. My solar panels are working out pretty511nicely.512    But what are they doing now with the new bills? They're513considering the reconciliation bills and others, they're doing514their best to eliminate all these tax credits and incentives to515put solar panels on your home. Why? What in the hell is so516insidious and dangerous about a solar panel? That was my517conscious decision and my investment and I think it'll pay off518nicely for me. Why would you want to set out to do this?519Because of fossil fuel industry hates them like the devil hates520holy water.521    They hate solar panels, but we put them on then and I'm522glad we did. President Trump also instructed the Justice523Department to sue the States that have enacted laws to force524fossil fuel companies to pay for the cost of their pollution525and to block lawsuits intended to hold the fossil fuel industry526accountable.527    Now, Republicans are trying to repeal the tax incentives528like the one I just mentioned on my solar panels in my home as529part of the President's so called, ``Big Beautiful Bill.'' Less530clean energy means what? More pollution, more heat on this531planet, higher electricity bills for Americans. Who's going to532profit from that? The fossil fuel industry exactly. Climate533change is real and it's a huge threat to our economy, our534environment, and our way of life.535    These facts are undeniable. We need you as young people in536America to stand up and say to our generation, ``Get the hell537out of the way. You're screwing up this planet and we have to538live with it.'' So, give us something that's more hopeful and539positive. And it isn't by finding conspiracy theories involving540China. Instead of holding this partisan hearing to push541conspiracy theories and fossil fuel industry funded attacks on542State climate policy, we should be holding bipartisan meetings543to address the cost of climate change and to identify544bipartisan ideas to produce more clean energy, create jobs and545lower energy bills across the country and maybe give you an546earth that you can live on.547    I yield.548    Chair Cruz. I thank the Ranking Member, and I would note549that both of my Democrat colleagues in their remarks had not a550word to say about communist China funneling millions of dollars551to pay for these lawsuits, miraculously that was absent from552their remarks nor----553    Senator Whitehouse. I think we referred to it by using the554phrase, ``Conspiracy.''555    Chair Cruz. Yes, you did say you don't worry about556conspiracy theories but what is most certainly not a conspiracy557theory is that the agenda of the Chinese Communist Party and558the agenda of Senate Democrats are identical. Both China and559the Democrats want to bankrupt the American energy industry.560Both China and the Democrats want to destroy jobs in America561and both China and the Democrats want to increase the price you562pay for electricity every month.563    And they want to increase the price you pay for putting gas564in your car every week. That is the agenda of today's Democrat565party. That is the agenda of communist China. And today's566Democrats are not remotely embarrassed to have their left wing567groups funded by communist China, the world's biggest polluter568because China's interest is weakening and hurting America. It569makes you ask why an American political party would have that570interest as well.571    Senator Whitehouse. I would just observe that saying it572more loudly doesn't make it more true.573    Chair Cruz. Actually, in Washington, sometimes it does. All574right. We will now introduce our distinguished panel. We will575start with Attorney General Kris Kobach, who was raised in576Topeka, Kansas, where he graduated from Washburn Rural High577School. He completed his undergraduate studies in government at578Harvard University. I've heard of them.579    Graduating first at his department in summa cum laude, a580Marshall scholar. He received his PhD in politics from the581University of Oxford. He received his JD from Yale Law School582serving as notes development editor of the Yale Law Journal.583Attorney General Kobach clerked for the 10th Circuit Court of584Appeals and shortly thereafter became a professor of585constitutional law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City586School of Law from 1996 to 2011.587    During that period, Attorney General Kobach received a588White House fellowship from President George W. Bush. He served589in the United States Department of Justice under Attorney590General John Ashcroft as Counsel to the Attorney General.591Attorney General Kobach served as the 31st Kansas Secretary of592State from 2011 to 2019.593    In 2017, President Trump tapped him to lead the594Presidential Commission on election integrity. As an attorney595in private practice, Attorney General Kobach litigated some of596the most high profile cases in the country, including defending597statutes and ordinances against the ACLU on multiple occasions.598In 2012, he brought the first challenge to President Obama's599DACA amnesty on behalf of 10 ICE agents.600    In 2022, he represented 36 members of the Air Force and the601Air National Guard who were denied a religious exemption to the602Biden Vaccine Mandate. Attorney General Kobach was elected as603Kansas' 45th Attorney General in November 2022. As Attorney604General, he led and personally argued multiple challenges to605the illegal actions of the Biden administration, including606obtaining an injunction, stopping Biden's illegal Title IX607regulation that would've opened women's locker rooms and608facilities on college campuses to biological males.609    He also stopped the Biden administration's regulation that610provided Obamacare benefits to illegal aliens. In 2024, the611Nation's Republican Attorney's General elected him chairman of612the Republican Attorney General Association. He lives near Lee613Compton with his wife Heather and their five children. Our614second witness is David Arkush.615    Senator Whitehouse. May I? He's a minority witness.616    Chair Cruz. In practice, the Chairman has always introduced617all the witnesses.618    Senator Whitehouse. I don't think that is the practice but619that's okay if you don't want to provide me that courtesy,620proceed.621    Chair Cruz. David Arkush is the Director of Public Citizens622Climate Program. He is an expert on the climate crisis,623financial regulations, regulatory law and policy and consumer624and worker protection. He has broad experience building625coalitions and advocating for the public interest, having626interacted extensively with Congress and regulatory agencies627and litigated complex cases in the Federal courts.628    Before running the climate program, David spent 5 years629directing Public Citizens Congress Watch Division, where he led630strategic research and advocacy campaigns and played key roles631in the passage of laws including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street632Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, and the Consumer633Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008.634    A Time magazine profile of David notes that he has,635``Advocated for consumer protection, advised breaking up the636largest too big to fail banks and addressed other industry637structure issues while investigating the financial sector's638myriad ties to the Government.''639    David has also taught administrative law and legislation at640the University of Richmond School of Law. He graduated with641honors from Harvard Law School where he served as managing642editor of the Harvard Civil Rights Civil Liberties Law Review643and with honors from Washington University in St. Louis, where644he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa.645    Our third witness, Scott Walter, is President of Capital646Research Center. He served in the George W. Bush administration647as Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, and648was Vice President at the philanthropy Round Table, editing649Philanthropy magazine and producing donor guidebooks on650assistance to the poor, public policy research and other651topics.652    Walter has testified to six Committees in Congress, and to653the IRS, and numerous State legislatures, and he has written654for and been quoted in such outlets as The New York Times, The655Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and the Chronicle of656Philanthropy. A Georgetown graduate, he served as a senior657fellow at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty, and is senior658editor of AEI's flagship publication.659    He is the author of Arabella: The Dark Money Network of660Billionaires Secretly Transforming America. He and his wife661Erica, have four children and live in Virginia. I would ask662each of the three witnesses to please rise for the oath.663    [Witnesses are sworn in.]664    Chair Cruz. All of you have answered affirmatively. General665Kobach, you are recognized for your opening statement.666667   STATEMENT OF HON. KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF668                     KANSAS, TOPEKA, KANSAS669670    Mr. Kobach. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished671Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to672testify today about environmental lawfare. As Attorney General673of Kansas, I've represented the State of Kansas in multiple674environmental cases in this broad category of litigation.675    Because my experience is greatest in the litigation itself676rather than on the various connections to China, I will focus677principally on the litigation. Touching briefly on the China678connections where I am familiar with them. I want to jump679straight to what we see that's new in environmental litigation.680We're all familiar with the past decades of litigation.681    There are two new types of litigation we're seeing just in682the last few years. First, we are seeing laws or regulations683coming from specific States that are extra territorial in684scope. In other words, the law doesn't just regulate the State685and the residents of that State. It attempts to regulate the686whole country.687    And I'll give you two principal examples of this. And the688main way to stop these laws right now and to try to restore689Federal, nationwide uniform regulation in the environmental690sector is for either the justice department or for a State to691sue. First in 2023, the California Air Resources Board or CARB692promulgated their advanced clean fleet regulation, which693mandates a transition to zero emission trucks on highways in694California by 2035 for medium duty vehicles by 2042 for all695other vehicles.696    But most fleets would have to meet emission targets697starting this year in 2025. This CARB regulation masquerades as698an in-State rule. But really it is a nationwide rule because of699California's scope and because so many ports are in California,700trucks have to go through and if they go through California for701one bit of one day then they're subject to the regulations. It702would effectively create a national policy regulating trucks703all over the country.704    And of course, usurp Congress's prerogative, presumably705something the Committee cares about here. In 2024, Nebraska and706Kansas and 15 other States sued California, challenging707California's CARB regulation, arguing principally that it was708preempted by two Federal statutes. Candidly, California was709never going to win this case in court. You had those two710express preemption provisions and then on top of that, they had711to get a waiver from the EPA.712    They applied for that waiver but by the time of the recent713election had not yet obtained it. And then in January of this714year, California backed down, withdrew their waiver request,715and entered into settlement negotiations with the plaintiff716states of which I'm one. But not all extraterritorial State717laws are defeated so easily. The ones that are currently in718litigation are the so-called climate change Superfund laws in719like late 2024.720    New York enacted one and then in early 2025 Vermont721followed. The New York Law Forces climate companies to722retroactively pay fines, totaling $75 billion for the past 25723years of fossil fuel emissions, the carbon emissions, the CCP724backed Chinese American Planning Council lobbied heavily for725the New York Superfund Law.726    In February, 2025, a group of Republican-led States, 22 of727us sued in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of728New York. We are maintaining that it is impliedly preempted by729the Clean Air Act, since it obviously interferes with730Congress's objective of having a uniform national law. It also731violates the equal sovereignty of the States.732    But I make the point in my written testimony, this is one733area where express preemption would be much more helpful. And734I'm normally a strong opponent of preemption. I think Congress735should reluctantly preempt State laws and courts should736reluctantly read between the lines of congressional statutes to737find preemption. But this is one area where I believe express738preemption will be helpful to Congress and to the States so739that we have a uniform national policy. And there's language I740suggest on page 5 of my testimony.741    The second threat is something the Chairman alluded to and742that is lawsuits brought by cities and counties. And these are743all over the country. There's over 30 of them. I want to744briefly describe a couple of them. One is Rodriguez versus745Exxon Mobil. In that case, Ford County, Kansas, where Dodge746City is, is one of the plaintiffs attempting to represent not747just Ford County, not just Kansas counties, but to represent748all counties in America and all of their representatives.749    In other words, it's purporting to represent everybody in750this country. They're bringing a case under the theory of751public nuisance but they're also doing something different.752They're attempting to usurp the State's prerogative as parens753patriae. That is to say the State's Attorney's General have the754authority to bring a case to protect the broadly rich health755and welfare of the citizens of the State.756    So in addition to usurping Federal authority by trying to757make a national policy in that case against plastics, they're758also usurping State authorities. As Kansas' Attorney General,759I've intervened in that case and also in a companion case or a760similar case with similar plaintiffs, going after shale oil761production in New Mexico. There's another case that's further762along. It's Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. BP. That763one's in the Maryland Supreme Court right now. I think that764where Congress can be helpful in these cases is in getting to765the bottom of where the money is coming from.766    The case has been going on for 8 years. There's not a767single dollar that's been won in damages. Yet, tens of millions768of dollars in attorney's fees have been expended already. The769money is coming from somewhere. The foundations are getting770their money from somewhere. It's reasonable to ask if China is771part of that equation. And I think, I would hope that would be772there'd be bipartisan support for disclosing foreign funding of773third-party litigation.774    And so, in conclusion, I would say we will continue these775fights in court as the State Attorney's General. But we do need776some help from Congress. And I think these are modest requests777for legislation preemption that would preserve the prerogatives778shared by both parties for congressional national uniform779legislation and also some transparency where foreign entities780and foreign countries are engaged in this litigation.781    [The prepared statement of Mr. Kobach appears as a782submission for the record.]783    Chair Cruz. Thank you General. Mr. Arkush.784785             STATEMENT OF DAVID ARKUSH, DIRECTOR,786         PUBLIC CITIZEN CLIMATE PROGRAM, WASHINGTON, DC787788    Mr. Arkush. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse,789Ranking Member Durbin, thank you for the opportunity to testify790today. Right now, there's a brutal heat wave afflicting half791the United States. Energy costs and insurance premiums are792skyrocketing. And we're sitting here in the U.S. Senate talking793about Chinese communist conspiracy theories straight out of the7941950's. I don't think this is the right priority.795    That said, there is a conspiracy here and it's the obvious796one in plain sight. Big Oil has made trillions of dollars in797profits over the past several decades and the industry is798extremely harmful. It kills millions of people every year and799has cost us trillions of dollars. The industry knew decades ago800that burning fossil fuels would cause in its own words,801``Globally catastrophic harm.''802    What it chose to do with that knowledge is remarkable.803Imagine you've learned that something you are doing will cause804globally catastrophic harm, will have, ``Serious consequences805for humanity's survival. Those are the industry's words.'' I806hope you would stop doing it.807    If for some reason you can't stop immediately because of808the economic importance of your industry then you could still809alert the public and help work toward solutions, including810selling safer, better forms of energy yourself. Worst case, you811could at least keep quiet while other people go about learning812about the problem and figuring out how to fix it.813    But the oil industry did none of these things. Instead, it814actively lied and deceived people, spending millions of dollars815on a deception campaign to cast doubt on science that the816industry itself knew was correct. They had polling in the8171990's that showed strong public support and public concern for818climate change. And that showed that public support for climate819change turned to opposition when people were told that there820was scientific disagreement about climate science.821    So that's what they did. Manufacture doubt about climate822science and fraudulently claim that scientists disagree about823it. Even more remarkable, it's clear they believed the science824themselves because they used it. For example, in the 1990's,825they raised the height of offshore oil platforms to account for826the sea level rise that they predicted.827    They did this while arguing to the public and Congress that828climate science was too uncertain to make any costly economic829decisions about it, but they weren't uncertain. They moved to830protect their own investments and interests while lying to831everyone else. This was also, they could keep profiting832enormously but the rest of us have not profited, far from it.833On the contrary, we're paying dearly. Last year alone climate834related harms cost Americans nearly $1 trillion, more than 3835percent of GDP.836    This is like a stealth tax on all of us. Insurance premiums837are skyrocketing due to climate driven extreme weather838insurance companies are pulling out of more and more places,839even whole States. The Chair of the Federal Reserve, as Senator840Whitehouse noted, recently testified to a Senate Committee that841there are whole regions of the country, where in 10 or 15 years842you won't be able to get a mortgage and there won't be bank843branches or ATMs.844    This will have devastating economic consequences for our845country. A large proportion of climate related costs are846already uninsured and the burden is increasingly falling on847American families and State and local governments. Some of848those governments are trying to hold Big Oil accountable for a849fraction of those costs so that the polluter's responsible for850the damage pay the cost instead of taxpayers getting stuck with851the bill. This is a basic principle of fairness.852    Something we teach to our toddlers. You make a mess, you853clean it up. Also, the notion that a person who causes damage854should pay for it is as old as law itself. You can see it in855the Code of Hammurabi written nearly 4,000 years ago. But oil856companies don't like this principle because they're causing857more harm than perhaps anyone else in human history and they858don't want to pay what they owe. They don't want the normal859rules to apply. They want you to shield them from860accountability and they're pushing for it in part by funding861people to spin cockamamie theories about China like the ones862we're hearing today.863    Speaking of China, if anyone is helping China right now in864our political system, it's the party pushing what I think of as865a serious energy retreat and the Big Ugly Bill in Congress.866Some people call it the Big Beautiful Bill. That bill would put867China way, way ahead of the U.S. by strangling our renewable868energy, stifling innovation, and locking us into forking over869hundreds of billions of dollars every year to the dirty,870dangerous, expensive energy of 200 years ago, fossil fuels.871    The bill could shatter 331 factories and kill 330,000 jobs872in the U.S. solar industry alone, mostly in red States,873including ones represented by Members of this Committee. But874that's what Big Oil wants and that's the industry that happens875to fund the elections of politicians supporting the bill and876funds a vast network of groups that are still lying on its877behalf. That's the conspiracy here, the obvious one in plain878sight. Thank you.879    [The prepared statement of Mr. Arkush appears as a880submission for the record.]881    Chair Cruz. Thank you. Mr. Walter.882883             STATEMENT OF SCOTT WALTER, PRESIDENT,884            CAPITAL RESEARCH CENTER, WASHINGTON, DC885886    Mr. Walter. Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Whitehouse887distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the888honor of testifying. I'm Scott Walter, President of the Capital889Research Center, where we study special interests. It's no890accident as the Marxists say that China has deep ties to the891environmentalist movement. Whatever their intentions, radical892climate activists advocate policy after policy that objectively893strengthens China and weakens America.894    Whether it's hindering our production of energy, boosting895China's energy resilience, or making our supply chains896dependent on Chinese inputs. As the report by State Armor I897cited documents, the Chinese Communist Party has every898incentive to support climate activism in America.899Unfortunately, as I also document, China finds willing partners900in activist groups like the Rocky Mountain Institute, the901California China Climate Institute and Energy Foundation China.902    The Energy Foundation Scheme is not subtle. It's headed by903a former influential Chinese government official and sends904money to activists at groups like the Rocky Mountain Institute905and the Natural Resources Defense Council. It also sends money906to activists in universities like Berkeley, UCLA, and Harvard.907But foreign nationals in China aren't the only ones who attack908our energy independence and threaten to make it harder for909working class Americans to heat and cool their homes and drive910their cars and trucks. Billionaires around the world add to the911threat.912    In Australia, the billionaire Andrew Forrest works with913American tort lawyers and groups like the Sierra Club and the914Center for Climate Integrity to put a major U.S. energy company915out of business through lawfare that bypasses the democratic916process. A British billionaire, Sir Christopher Hohn also funds917the Center for Climate Integrity as well as law breaking918radicals at Extinction Rebellion.919    Then, there's the biggest foreign national billionaire920working to manipulate America's politics, Hansjorg Wyss, who's921poured over $650 million into the American left. Recipients922have included Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund, ClimateWorks,923and the minority witness's employer, Public Citizen.924    But Wyss is best known for giving $278 million to the925Sixteen Thirty Fund, a 501c4 operated by Arabella Advisors and926called by the Atlantic, ``The indisputable heavyweight of927Democratic Party dark money.'' Sixteen Thirty passes along tens928of millions of dollars to the League of Conservation Voters and929other environmental groups. Then there's the new Venture Fund930to which Wyss has given $82 million and which is also operated931by Arabella. They run the largest dark money network in the932country on either side.933    New Venture has donated over $1 million to Mr. Arkush's934Public Citizen and it also runs the Collective Action Fund.935That group pays the fore profit firm Sher Edling to sue energy936companies on behalf of States like Rhode Island and cities like937Baltimore, in hopes judges will force policies on our country938that majorities of Democrats and Republicans oppose, policies939that should be resolved through the political process by voters940and their elected representatives, not by private lawyers and941their ideologically motivated funders.942    Climate lawfare in America is also funded by homegrown943billionaires. Many with the same last name, ``Foundation.''944Hewlett and Rockefeller philanthropies stand out joined by many945more like Ford and MacArthur, who provide a handful of climate946lawfare groups a half billion dollars a year.947    Billionaire Michael Bloomberg supports lawfare by paying to948install activists in State Attorney General offices, hoping949they'll sue energy companies and achieve policy changes they950can't win through democratic legislatures.951    So far, they're mostly losing in the courts too. The New952York AGs case was dismissed with prejudice. Climate lawfare953raises ethics issues too. Contingency fees for firms like Sher954Edling presume they're taking a risk but are they, if they have955prior funding? Did these firms disclose that funding to956government clients? If the Government clients knew, did they957disclose the funding to the public?958    Another ethics problem, the Climate Judiciary Project runs959educational programs for judges about climate change and960lawsuits. One observer calls it an effort by the climate tort961movement to brief judges on the plaintiff's cases with962supposedly neutral information.963    Yet the speakers come from the plaintiff's witnesses and964amicus brief filers. This effort to capture courts deserves965your oversight. If the public knew climate lawfare's cost and966its ties to foreign influence, they'd be outraged. I hope this967hearing begins to reveal the truth. Thank you.968    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walter appears as a969submission for the record.]970    Chair Cruz. Thank you. What we're seeing is not the rule of971law. It's lawfare. These lawsuits aren't meant to succeed on972the merits. They're designed to exhaust, to intimidate and to973destroy America's energy sector, death by a thousand cuts.974We've even seen private parties get in on the act. One of the975most infamous examples was Juliana versus United States, where97621 people sued the Federal Government claiming that allowing977climate change to persist violated their due process rights.978    A Federal district judge in Oregon actually agreed,979comparing the right to a stable climate to the right to same980sex marriage. She was prepared to enjoin the entire Federal981Government, effectively putting the energy industry into982judicial receivership at the behest of ``children.''983Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit, by far the most liberal court984of appeals in the country shut it down and eventually a985unanimous Supreme Court did as well.986    Funded by deep pocketed climate activists and left wing987dark money, the anti-American energy lobby and its allies in988the plaintiff's bar have initiated dozens of civil lawsuits989against American energy producers. These suits, which assert990State law claims under dubious nuisance toward or consumer991protection theories are properly preempted by Federal law.992    Nevertheless, they have proliferated across the country and993they're exposing energy producers to potentially trillions of994dollars in damages. There are now more than 30 active lawsuits995across the country accusing energy producers of misleading the996public about carbon emissions and climate change. If997successful, these suits could destroy millions of jobs and998raise the energy cost of every consumer in America.999    Let me start with the legal foundation. General Kobach,1000have any of these climate lawsuits brought under public1001nuisance or similar theories been upheld on the merits by a1002Federal Appellate Court?1003    Mr. Kobach. No, Senator. And none of them have been upheld1004on the merits by a State appellate court either. The case that1005is closest to a higher-level decision right now is the1006Baltimore case, Baltimore versus BP. It's several consolidated1007cases. That's basically a case where Baltimore is suing the1008fossil fuel industry, defendants for climate change generally.1009    A lot of these others are more specific like shale oil1010production or plastics but they're just global warming. And the1011District Court in Baltimore ruled against the plaintiffs on all1012eight grounds. That's a pretty big deal and they now are1013appealing to the State Supreme Court. That one will probably be1014decided later this year, early next year. But that's the1015biggest or nearest chance the plaintiffs have to achieving a1016victory. But they have got no victory so far.1017    Chair Cruz. And isn't it true that many of these suits are1018brought by cities and counties that lack the legal standing to1019assert injuries on behalf of the entire public?1020    Mr. Kobach. Yes, Mr. Chairman and that's what I was1021alluding to when I mentioned parens patriae. The State has the1022responsibility--parens patriae is Latin of course for parent or1023father of the country and the State Attorney General, which1024represents the State at large, has that sovereignty. Our1025Constitution contemplates that States have sovereignty and they1026conceded some of that sovereignty to the Federal Government.1027    But localities are creations of State government,1028localities do not possess the sovereignty the State does. And1029so, while some people may be upset that we have 50 States and1030the States take different positions in some of these legal1031cases, the States have at least the right to represent their1032residents. Cities do not, counties do not.1033    And so, it massively multiplies the, the potential1034plaintiffs out there. And it becomes nonsensical in a legal1035sense for a city in one end of a State and a city on the1036opposite end of the State to both purport to represent the1037residents of the same State. And in the cases I mentioned,1038they're purporting to in a class action format, represent all1039representatives, represent all citizens and residents of every1040county in America. So they've taken public nuisance theory to a1041bizarre extreme. And they've also usurped authority of State1042Attorney's General.1043    Chair Cruz. Well, that may help explain why they're losing1044so many of these cases. Mr. Walter, Sher Edling has filed1045dozens of climate lawsuits. Are they being paid by the1046Government entities they represent or by anonymous left wing1047donor networks like the new Venture Fund?1048    Mr. Walter. I believe the vast majority of the funding1049comes from the outside funders, yes.1050    Chair Cruz. Isn't it also true that one of the biggest1051sources of funding for U.S. based environmental litigation1052groups is Energy Foundation China, an organization run by a1053former senior Chinese Communist Party official who helped craft1054the CCP's 5-year energy plans?1055    Mr. Walter. Energy Foundation China channels tens of1056millions of dollars to numerous environmental groups. Yes.1057    Chair Cruz. Now, Mr. Walter, my Democrat colleagues have1058said that's a crazy conspiracy theory. What is the basis for1059saying that energy Foundation China is funneling so many1060millions of dollars into these suits?1061    Mr. Walter. Well, their own IRS filings because they're are1062501c3 registered in San Francisco.1063    Chair Cruz. If this were really about reducing emissions,1064wouldn't we expect Energy Foundation China to give a damn about1065the worst polluter on the face of the planet, that being1066communist China?1067    Mr. Walter. That would be logical. Yes, Senator.1068    Chair Cruz. And yet their lawsuits are designed to destroy1069the American energy industry, which happens to perfectly1070coincide with the political objective of Senate Democrats to1071destroy the American energy industry. Would the result of that1072help or hurt America and would it help or hurt China?1073    Mr. Walter. Well, obviously it would help China vis-a-vis1074the United States and it would certainly be highly problematic1075for everyone in the United States.1076    Chair Cruz. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse.1077    Senator Whitehouse. Just for the record, at least as to me,1078my personal objective is to reduce fossil fuel emissions to the1079point of safety, which can be done in a lot of ways, including1080by reducing fossil fuel emissions or scrubbing them out of the1081fossil fuel power plants or replacing burning water to make1082steam with fossil fuel to run the turbines with boiling water,1083with nuclear, solar, other ways to run the turbines.1084    So, this is not about destroying the fossil fuel industry.1085This is about getting the fossil fuel industry to behave like a1086responsible citizen while it is causing so much harm. On the1087subject of harm, the International Monetary Fund has pegged the1088subsidy to fossil fuel in the United States every year from1089getting away with polluting for free, which is not moral, not1090economic, not environmentally correct. At over $700 billion,1091$700 billion.1092    No wonder it's such a monster in the political landscape1093when it's defending a $700 billion annual subsidy. But more1094than that, the damage that it does rolls forward. And one of1095the areas we're seeing it most clearly now is through the1096insurance industry. And Mr. Arkush, I'd like to ask you a1097little bit about that [points at witness]. There have been1098reports, not from green groups, from major insurance companies,1099from major mortgage companies, from very respected financial1100experts that once climate change makes weather and weather1101conditions too unpredictable, there become areas of the country1102that can't insure themselves any longer.1103    And once they can't insure themselves any longer in that1104area, you can't get mortgages any longer, which means that1105property values crash in that area and that local bankers1106suffer because their loan to value ratios crash and their1107mortgage revenue crashes. And that the combination of that1108local economic effect with the property value loss to those1109homeowners cascades into a full on 2008 style recession. Could1110you walk us through that and where we're seeing some current1111examples of that already beginning to appear?1112    Mr. Arkush. Sure. That's exactly right. Again, no less than1113the Republican Chair of the Federal Reserve has said that there1114are whole regions of the country that soon you won't be able to1115get a mortgage and there may not be bank branches or ATMs. And1116that is because of insurers withdrawing from those areas. And1117the way this works is that climate harms raise insurance rates1118or cause insurance insurers to withdraw entirely. They're1119withdrawing from entire States. There are headlines about this1120every other month.1121    When insurance becomes too expensive to afford or is just1122unavailable, that dramatically drops home values because you1123can't get a mortgage without insurance. And if you can't get a1124mortgage on a property, that dramatically shrinks the buying1125pool. And also, if the insurance is just really expensive, the1126expenses of paying for any asset or any kind of ownership1127reduce the value of the asset, right?1128    Senator Whitehouse. My point in my opening remarks, if the1129average homeowners insurance price in Florida is now $14,000 a1130year.1131    Mr. Arkush. Yes.1132    Senator Whitehouse. And if that's predicted to double or1133triple, let's say it doubles, now you go to $28,000 a year.1134    Mr. Arkush. Yes.1135    Senator Whitehouse. If when you buy a home you're signing1136up for $28,000 a year in expense out of your pocket?1137    Mr. Arkush. Just for insurance.1138    Senator Whitehouse. Just for insurance, what does that do1139for the value the home?1140    Mr. Arkush [continuing]. Not for maintenance, not the home,1141not the taxes, not for anything else. That's right. Then it1142gets a lot harder to sell your home, that's for sure.1143    Senator Whitehouse. Yes. The price goes down.1144    Mr. Arkush. And the value of your property falls a lot.1145Yes, that's absolutely right. And that's what we're seeing in1146Florida, people are losing their insurance. It has some of the1147highest premiums in the country. It has some of the fastest1148premium increases in the country. According to data from the1149Federal Insurance Office, there was a 168 percent increase from11502018 to 2022.1151    And Floridians who have to go to the State last resort1152insurer, Florida Citizens because they can't get insurance from1153anyone else. Ten percent of Florida homeowners already don't1154have insurance. And more and more people are unable to afford1155these premiums. It could easily cause a real estate crash that1156has nationwide effects. As you said, just like the financial1157crisis of 2008 which had its roots and a sharp decrease in home1158values.1159    Senator Whitehouse. And Mr. Arkush, just a last question.1160If an industry is lying to the public about the dangers of the1161product that it sells, is that established to be a legally1162actionable situation? And is the Tobacco Lawsuit an example of1163that?1164    Mr. Arkush. That's exactly right. There are, these are not1165novel legal theories. In fact, they're some of the oldest in1166our country. Some of them go way back, way before our country1167in English common law. If you're responsible for harms, you pay1168for them. If you can't commit fraud to consumers you can't1169engage in a fraud racket. And a fraud racket is exactly what1170big tobacco engaged in and was successfully sued by the U.S.1171Department of Justice for.1172    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. And State1173Attorneys' General points out our State Attorney General----1174    Mr. Arkush. And State Attorneys' General. That's absolutely1175right.1176    Chair Cruz. Thank you. Senator Durbin.1177    Senator Durbin. I'd like to followup a little bit on this1178discussion about lawsuits because I think that's part of why1179we're here today. It isn't just trying to identify the threat1180as being Chinese conspiracies or whatever it happens to be but1181it's also to slow down the pace of lawsuits being filed against1182major elements of the American economy.1183    In this case, the fossil fuel industry. Sheldon Whitehouse,1184my colleague, mentioned the tobacco issue. I know that one1185little bit because in 1988 in the House of Representatives, I1186successfully passed a bill to ban smoking on airplanes. Yes,1187that's true. We used to smoke on airplanes in the smoking1188section. How about that for a fantasy?1189    And the fact that we had the largest frequent fire club in1190the world, in the House of Representatives led to many revolt.1191We banned smoking on airplanes, but in order to finally get1192real regulation on tobacco and smoking, we couldn't do it1193through the House or the Senate. It had to be done in court.1194And it was done when States came together, General Kobach,1195States came together and said, ``We're going to all sue the1196tobacco companies.''1197    It took years for them to do it but they did it1198successfully. And what happened? Tobacco became less of a1199scourge to public health in America. And the likelihood that1200young people sit in this audience smoke has diminished1201dramatically. Now we have new challenges, social media1202platforms that are exploiting young people. We've had testimony1203before, Judiciary Committee, and we're all members of it, of1204people whose children some committed suicide. Others were1205exploited terribly with sexual images on the screen.1206    And the industry is oblivious to this because they're1207protected under law under Section 230 from liability for this1208activity. If we can crack through with lawsuits on the social1209media platforms, we can change things dramatically. In the last1210week or two, you probably heard about the opioid settlement, $71211or $8 billion to be distributed, lawsuits. The point I'm making1212to you is part of the agenda here is to somehow assign to1213lawsuits some insidious or evil motive and why they're being1214formed and filed.1215    And the fact is that they're doing what we expect them to1216do. Speak up for the consumer, try to bring some justice to a1217situation which otherwise doesn't have it. We know the fossil1218fuel industry is polluting this planet that we live on1219terribly. I can tell you this, a couple of successful lawsuits1220and they'll think twice about it. It changes. We changed the1221tobacco industry. Opioids changed. They can change.1222    But you go to the courtroom to make that to happen. I don't1223think it's necessarily the Chinese motivating us. We're looking1224for justice. And that's fundamental. It doesn't come from1225China. It comes from the heart of America too. The last point I1226would like to make to you is that we have an opportunity here1227to do something now, to provide opportunities for diminishing1228the pollution that we're living with.1229    Ignore it and it'll be too late. We've got to show some1230leadership in this country. The bill pending before the U.S.1231Congress on Reconciliation eliminates most of the incentive1232programs for renewable fuels. And that to me is something we'll1233pay a price for years to come. This is not a thoughtful thing.1234This is inspired by a President who calls global warming a1235hoax. I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's reality. And I1236think we need to do more about it. I yield.1237    Chair Cruz. Thank you. Senator Blumenthal.1238    Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The Tobacco1239Lawsuit was in fact brought by State attorneys' general and1240just as a historical footnote, we went to the Department of1241Justice and asked them to join us. They refused to do it. They1242said it couldn't succeed. And they also said the tobacco1243companies have never lost a lawsuit. They have never settled a1244lawsuit and you'll lose. Well, as it turned out, eventually,1245all the Attorneys' General of the United States of America,1246including Kansas, joined our lawsuit after a while, after we1247were successful because of the legal action based on the Unfair1248Trade Practices Act of the State of Connecticut, the State of1249Minnesota, the State of Massachusetts, the State of Florida.1250    The core States that brought that lawsuit relied on1251deceptive and unfair practice allegations, saying that the1252tobacco companies were lying when they said, ``Our product1253doesn't cause cancer. It doesn't cause death. It doesn't cause1254disease.'' It was a good old-fashioned garden-variety consumer1255protection case. It also involved antitrust allegations in1256Mississippi. It was an equity action.1257    It's more complicated than I am describing it right now but1258your State of Kansas, I think it's probably still getting1259money. Every year, every State in the country gets money to1260combat tobacco because it relied on the good old fashioned1261consumer protection statutes that say, ``When you make a1262promise to consumers, it has to be truthful and accurate.''1263    And so, I assume that all of the witnesses here support1264those kinds of consumer actions, correct? I'll begin with you,1265Attorney General?1266    Mr. Kobach. Yes, I do. When it fits into the correct legal1267box. So, for example, the tobacco lawsuits were brought under1268the State Consumer Protection Acts that you mentioned and every1269State has one. And they're based on the notion, which is very1270clearly laid out that the manufacturer of a product1271misrepresents the product to the consumer of the product and1272the consumer purchases it and suffers some injury or harm.1273    And it's because of that deception. It's much harder to fit1274climate change lawsuits into that box because there's no secret1275about the fact that fossil fuels are used in internal1276combustion engines and that those internal combustion engines1277emit CO2.1278    Senator Blumenthal. Well, but the State of Connecticut is1279suing Exxon Mobil right now under the Connecticut Unfair Trade1280Practices Act, saying basically it's lying about its product1281and the dangers and damages done by its product. You were suing1282Pfizer, same kinds of allegations, correct?1283    Mr. Kobach. The similarity is----1284    Senator Blumenthal. But no one is accusing you of trying to1285destroy the American drug industry.1286    Mr. Kobach. No, I don't think so. But I think they're not1287the same. The same, they both try to use a consumer protection1288box to put the case in. In the case of the Pfizer, they made1289certain representations about their product and that turned out1290to be contrary to the information they had and the individual1291took it to direct harm to himself.1292    In the case of fossil fuels, you have a broad public debate1293about the harms and how big they are, who's causing the harms.1294You also have third parties because it's not just the oil1295company.1296    Senator Blumenthal. But in the court, Connecticut has to1297prove its allegation, the facts behind the allegation that in1298fact the company is misrepresenting its product just as you1299have to prove by the way, as you well know----1300    Mr. Kobach. Right. Absolutely. Yes.1301    Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Your case has been1302remanded to State court. So you'll have your day in court there1303but no less than if you were in Federal court. You're going to1304have to offer evidence that proves your allegation. Same is1305true of Connecticut in suing Exxon Mobil. I don't see how, as a1306lawyer you can say, ``Well, the claims under the statute are1307wrongly bought just because it's a different industry.'' And1308because there is a public debate because----1309    Mr. Kobach. I'm not saying you can't----1310    Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Also, about the American1311drug industry.1312    Mr. Kobach. I'm not saying the claims are wrongly brought.1313I'm saying they have a much harder time proving the claims1314because there's less deception, there's also third parties and1315also the--it's not just the fossil fuel extraction company. You1316have the factory that uses, burns the fuels. You have the1317individuals themselves who drive to work in a car. Probably1318most of us flew here from some point on a plane.1319    Senator Blumenthal. My time has expired but I could take1320the words exactly that you just uttered and substitute tobacco1321and they would be identical to what the tobacco industry was1322saying about our lawsuit at the time. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.1323    Chair Cruz. Thank you. I would note that multiple Democrats1324said the idea that communist China was funding this litigation1325and assault in American energy was a ``Conspiracy theory.'' I1326thank Mr. Walter for pointing out the basis of it are the IRS1327filings from the China Energy Foundation. I have in front of me1328just one of those filings, the form 990 from 2023 and I turned1329to their disbursements.1330    And in 2023, they gave the University of California1331Berkeley $150,000. They gave the Rocky Mountain Institute1332$350,000. They gave the International Council on Clean1333Transportation, which I don't know what that is, but it's on K1334Street in Washington, $770,000. They gave Harvard University1335$80,000. They gave the Institute for Transformative and1336Development Policy in New York, $254,000.1337    They gave the University of California Los Angeles1338$150,000. They gave the University of Maryland College Park1339$250,000 and they gave the Natural Resources Defense Council1340$200,000. This is just 1 year. You can pull their 990 for every1341year but I ask unanimous consent that this be admitted into the1342record without objection.1343    [The information appears as a submission for the record.]1344    Senator Whitehouse. Without objection? I think it is1345important to clarify at the end of the day which one of those1346groups are actual litigants. You said litigants and whether the1347money goes to the litigation as opposed to the activities that1348those groups have legitimately in China trying to knock down1349Chinese emissions. It is Republicans who are fond of saying,1350``We might as well throw our hands up in the air about climate1351stuff because the Chinese are doing so much polluting.''1352    So, I think it is good that, let's say NRDC is on the1353ground in China fighting Chinese pollution in China. If that is1354what they're doing. It is a very different thing than having a1355Chinese conspiracy that funds a litigating group here in the1356United States in U.S. litigation. So that's a perfectly1357legitimate exhibit to enter into evidence. I have no objection1358to it but it doesn't prove your point yet.1359    Chair Cruz. So, I guess you and I disagree in that. I don't1360think it's good that these left wing activist groups that are1361litigating and trying to destroy jobs in this country and1362destroy American energy are being funded by the Chinese1363communist and the Chinese communist interest are directly1364antithetical to the interest of the American people. I'm going1365to ask a couple of more questions and I'll get--I'm sorry. Mr.1366Welch came back. Senator Welch, I didn't see you come back in.1367    Senator Welch. Thank you. So, Mr. Walter, I favor the1368provisions of the IRA that are being repealed. You're aware of1369what's going on there, right?1370    Mr. Walter. To some degree.1371    Senator Welch. All right. I mean, if all the people you've1372mentioned, all of the folks who you indicted for kind of using1373Ted Cruz's language, left wing radical ideas, how do you1374distinguish between a person whose motivation is to be left-1375wing Chinese sympathizer and people who just disagree with the1376fossil fuel industry, that climate change in fact is real and1377we have to do something about it? Can you explain to me?1378    Mr. Walter. Well at the beginning of my oral testimony1379there, I made the distinction between whatever the intentions1380of various folks may be. They're objectively assisting China in1381its desire to compete with United States.1382    Senator Welch. Like the Hewlett Foundation?1383    Mr. Walter. Yes.1384    Senator Walter. Seriously? Walter Hewlett, his foundation1385you think is in bed with the Communist Party?1386    Mr. Walter. Well, that's not what I said, is it? I said1387that objectively they're aiding the Chinese communists but I1388did not say that they themselves were communists.1389    Senator Welch. Right. But what you're doing is denying them1390the ability to make their own judgment about what's good public1391policy for the benefit of this country by saying that they're--1392and this really is how I hear it. Dupes of the Communist Party1393because what they're doing aligns you say with the communist?1394    Mr. Walter. Well, they give a good deal of money for1395instance to the Energy Foundation China, that the Chairman has1396been discussing, which is run by a former Chinese communist1397official.1398    Senator Welch. So, if by virtue--does China have any1399environmental problems?1400    Mr. Walter. It has grave environmental problems, yes.1401    Senator Welch. So, if there are some Chinese that want to1402deal with their environmental problems and we agree that there1403are environmental problems. And we also know that climate1404change can't be solved by one country and other countries start1405to do something about it, is that a problem for you?1406    Mr. Walter. Well, I have to say that I'm skeptical that1407former Chinese communist officials are interested in doing1408anything that would harm their country.1409    Senator Welch. Who are some of the other names? I don't1410know if your statement here that you said are in effect,1411``Dupes,'' if I can translate what you're saying of the1412Communist Party because their climate agenda you say is being1413funded by them?1414    Mr. Walter. I didn't talk about it being funded by them.1415And what I did--what I did explain for--I mean, there are very1416simple things. Massive U.S. Government subsidies for products1417that use Chinese technology obviously is enhancing the Chinese1418economy.1419    Senator Welch. Has the U.S. Government through its tax code1420ever provided any incentives in tax preferences for the fossil1421fuel industry?1422    Mr. Walter. Yes. A great deal.1423    Senator Welch. And you don't have a problem with that?1424    Mr. Walter. Well, I'm not an economist qualified to talk1425about the relative value of the subsidies but I don't think1426that it's remotely deniable that we currently subsidize all1427sorts of green technology in which China is leading and1428therefore helping the Chinese.1429    Senator Welch. So, the fact that we Senator Durbin here has1430solar panels, does that make him a communist sympathizer?1431    Mr. Walter. No, I don't think so. Any more than my driving1432to this hearing today makes me a mass murderer or an accessory1433to mass murder.1434    Senator Welch. You know, this is the issue I have. We've1435got a planet that's melting. All right? That's my view. The oil1436industry doesn't agree with that. They think everything's fine.1437And we went from a policy where it was all of the above to1438essentially a policy that everything below is where we're going1439to get our energy.1440    And what I'm seeing in the arguments that you were making1441is you're trying to demean and disparage and discredit1442arguments by people who believe that we need a radically1443different policy. It does allow for the development of clean1444energy to reduce carbon emissions. That's what I'm hearing.1445    And then one of the tools is to vilify folks who have that1446point of view that they are dupes of the Communist Party that's1447trying to take us down. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.1448    Chair Cruz. Thank you. And I would note one of the reasons1449why the left and the Chinese Communist resort to litigation is1450because their ideas are incredibly unpopular when the American1451people vote on them. So for example, in the U.S. Senate, every1452Senate Democrat voted in favor of the California Waiver that1453would effectively ban the internal combustion engine in 181454States across the country.1455    Every Senate Democrat voted in favor of it. But you know1456what? The citizens aren't voting in favor of it. They're not1457campaigning. We don't see our Democrat colleagues saying,1458``We're going to ban the internal combustion engine.'' Even in1459bright blue States, even in Vermont and Rhode Island, the1460voters are not saying, ``Take away the car out of my1461driveway.''1462    And yet, Democrat office holders are trying to use1463government power to fight the Democrat wishes of their1464electorate. General Kobach, let's talk about the courts. The1465Climate Judiciary Project backed by the Environmental Law1466Institute, Energy Foundation and private donors connected to1467plaintiff's law firms has trained over 2000 judges, many in key1468jurisdictions where these climate cases are pending.1469    Is it appropriate for sitting judges to receive climate1470science, ``Education'' from advocacy groups like the1471Environmental Law Institute, groups that are directly tied to1472the plaintiffs in active litigation?1473    Mr. Kobach. No. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe it is any1474more than it would be appropriate for a group of justices to go1475on an extensive training conference and be trained in how to1476dispute or defend the fossil fuel industry. When you have a1477group of litigants in a pitch legal battle in approximately1478three--well, more than three dozen cases, if we're talking1479about more than just the ones brought by cities and counties.1480The judges are there to be neutral.1481    And the worst thing I fear going into any case on any issue1482is if I know that the judge has already dug in based on prior1483things the judge has done or said against me. So I don't think1484it's appropriate for litigants to be training the judges in1485essentially what their experts are going to say in the trial.1486    Mr. Arkush. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to this as well?1487Because----1488    Chair Cruz. No. Because we've got limited time. If someone1489else wants to get into it. General Kobach, isn't it true that--1490actually, go ahead, Mr. Arkush.1491    Mr. Arkush. I just wanted to say that what Mr. Kobach is1492saying he opposes is exactly what's happening from the defense1493side as well. The Environmental Institute has multiple oil1494companies on its board, executives of oil companies, BP and1495Shell and it has Counsel representing them in court in1496important leadership positions.1497    Chair Cruz. So, we may be breaking news here or are you on1498behalf of Public Citizen calling for The Environmental Law1499Institute to stop training judges and indoctrinating judges?1500    Mr. Arkush. What I'm saying is it doesn't make any sense to1501say that they're indoctrinating judges as some sort of leftist1502plot against the oil companies----1503    Chair Cruz. Let's be clear. I'm calling for them to stop1504training judges because I think they are indoctrinating them.1505It's interesting you said that but you weren't willing to go to1506the natural next step of therefore it should stop. General----1507    Mr. Arkush. I don't know much about it but I do know that1508BP and Shell are on the board.1509    Chair Cruz. Mr. Arkush, if you believed what you were1510saying, you would be willing to call for it to stop. You're not1511and that suggests you know damn well what it is. They're1512training the judges, and it's indoctrination, and you don't1513want it to stop because you want the judges to be biased and1514rule in favor of these crackpot theories. General Kobach, isn't1515it true----1516    Mr. Arkush. I disagree that Shell and BP are on the board1517of an organization that's indoctrinated and that is against1518them.1519    Chair Cruz. Mr. Arkush, your time is done.1520    Mr. Arkush. Thank you.1521    Chair Cruz. Isn't it true that these programs often hosted1522in conjunction with the Federal Judicial Center or the National1523Judicial College can obscure ethics disclosure requirements1524because they fall under judicial exemption categories?1525    Mr. Kobach. Yes, Chairman, you're correct. There are1526definite ethical problems. And in addition to any the1527overarching sort of Federal model of ethics, you also have1528additional State ethical rules that may be violated as well.1529But at the end of the day, it's judicial neutrality that is the1530biggest ethical constraint on our entire Article III Courts and1531State Courts. And that is the biggest problem I see going into1532any case.1533    Chair Cruz. It's also been reported that the Chief Justice1534of the Hawaii Supreme Court participated in these sessions at1535the same time that his court was reviewing one of these climate1536lawsuits. So active litigation and yet happily being1537indoctrinated by interested parties in an ex parte setting1538where the opposing Counsel had no opportunity to refute the1539indoctrination.1540    Mr. Walter, the Climate Judiciary Project tells judges that1541climate lawsuits are a, ``Unique opportunity for1542accountability.'' Would you call that education or would you1543call that political indoctrination disguised as training?1544    Mr. Walter. Accountability is the standard term used by1545political activists to try to say, ``We want to hurt those1546folks that we're opposed to.''1547    Chair Cruz. Do you believe Congress should investigate1548whether these trainings are undermining the impartiality of the1549judiciary?1550    Mr. Walter. Absolutely, Senator.1551    Chair Cruz. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse.1552    Senator Whitehouse. Well, the funny thing about this1553conversation is that time did not begin yesterday. And for1554years, public advocates have been objecting to fossil fuel1555funded special trips, trainings, exotic locales behind closed1556doors, indoctrination sessions of judges for like 20 years now.1557    This is a recurring phenomenon and now we're hearing1558outrage about that same phenomenon when it's not all fossil1559fuel funded, when it's a group that has fossil fuel executives1560and attorneys on its board. But somehow this is the big1561outrage. So yes, I don't think judges should be being1562indoctrinated behind closed doors by special interests. And1563I've been saying that for years.1564    But the experience of this is that the fossil fuel industry1565has been at it like hammer and tongs for decades. And now to1566suggest that a group that has fossil fuel folks on its board1567is, I mean, this is an epic effort in projection and false1568equivalency. And Mr. Arkush you wanted to say something a1569little further--one other thing. The people in America don't1570want to see a climate solution as a proposition is simply not1571true. We have done polling that I have pretty good confidence1572in that says penalties on polluting imports, like imports from1573China that are built with coal powered power electricity and1574have huge carbon footprints, putting a penalty on that higher1575footprint.1576    Because they're not meeting our standards. Twelve percent1577opposed, 74 percent support putting pollution limits on big1578corporations. You can pollute this much and then no more.1579Twelve percent oppose, 72 percent support putting a fee on big1580polluters to fix that economic problem that I described. That1581polluting for free violates the fundamental law of market1582economics. That the harms of your product should be baked into1583its cost.1584    That fee, 10 percent of Americans opposed, 74 percent1585support. The problem with this issue isn't public support. The1586problem with this issue is fossil fuel influence in this1587building. And I contend that that is what today is all about.1588And I'll just leave it at that.1589    Chair Cruz. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. One final bit of1590questioning for you, Mr. Arkush. Define for this Committee what1591homicide means?1592    Mr. Arkush. Sure. So, homicide is a legal term that refers1593to--it's essentially a blanket term for any form of unlawful1594killing. And an unlawful killing is causing death with a1595culpable mental state, causing a death means substantially1596contributing to it or accelerating it. And a culpable mental1597state could be negligence knowledge, recklessness.1598    Chair Cruz. So, you wrote an article in 2023 entitled,1599``Climate Homicide prosecuting Big Oil for Climate deaths.'' In1600that article, you argue that oil and gas executives could be1601prosecuted not just sued but criminally prosecuted for1602homicide, for murder based on climate change. Is that right?1603    Mr. Arkush. That's right. I mean, I would be careful with1604the wording because murder again is a technical term and1605definitely, we're not arguing that they could be prosecuted for1606first degree murder. That's killing with intent.1607    Chair Cruz. But you want to put them in prison for1608homicide, lock them up, treat them as criminals, put them in,1609murderers get put, people who commit homicide get put in jails1610with violent criminals. And your position is this is a1611reasonable and rational thing that we should put the people1612leading the energy companies in America producing 8.5 million1613jobs, we should arrest them and throw them in jail. Is that1614correct?1615    Mr. Arkush. It could be the case that some executives1616should be prosecuted in that way, of course, if you can't put a1617corporation in jail. So, there are other remedies in that1618situation.1619    Chair Cruz. But you can put human beings in jail and1620presumably you put the corporate officers in jail.1621    Mr. Arkush. Yes, you can.1622    Chairman Cruiz. You'd prosecute them for murder. So don't1623let there be any ambiguity. And by the way, Senator Whitehouse1624was really eager to make clear that you're the minority1625witness, you're the witness he wanted, he was eager to1626introduce you. I'm going to go on the record and say that is a1627moonbeam wacky theory that you want to prosecute people1628creating jobs and producing energy for murder. Let me ask you,1629Mr. Arkush, how did you get to the capital today?1630    Mr. Arkush. So, here's what I want to tell you----1631    Chair Cruz. How did you get to the capital today?1632    Mr. Arkush. I took an Uber.1633    Chair Cruz. You took an Uber?1634    Mr. Arkush. Yes.1635    Chair Cruz. Now was that in an automobile?1636    Mr. Arkush. Yes.1637    Chair Cruz. Did that automobile have gasoline in it?1638    Mr. Arkush. Yes. This is very, very cute. I see where this1639is going.1640    Chair Cruz. So, I'm glad you think it's cute. Under your1641theory, you admitted you admitted carbon emissions----1642    Mr. Arkush. Yes.1643    Chair Cruz [continuing]. Should you be arrested in this1644room right now and prosecuted for murder?1645    Mr. Arkush. No.1646    Chair Cruz. Why?1647    Mr. Arkush. That's not what the law holds. So, there is a--1648--1649    Chair Cruz. So well, tell me why because you're willing to1650say the guy who sold you the gasoline should be prosecuted for1651murder. You are the one that benefited from it. Couldn't you1652have ridden a bicycle or maybe like some fairy dust to get1653here?1654    Mr. Arkush. The guy who sold the gas and 50 years ago knew1655that it was going to cause globally catastrophic damage that1656would cause problems for humanity so that--hold on.1657    Chair Cruz. But you have exquisite knowledge of this. You1658are saying you are an expert. So on mens rea----1659    Mr. Arkush. I'm not done.1660    Chair Cruz [continuing]. You have a level of culpability1661because you claim that the act of getting in that car was1662violence. It was murder, that you should be locked up. Why do1663you get to violate these principles in a way that you just want1664to lock up the person who sold you the gas but not the1665beneficiary of it?1666    Mr. Arkush. That's your claim, not mine. Because to be1667liable, there are a bunch of reasons but one of them is you1668have to substantially contribute to the harm to the death. And1669I am not----1670    Chair Cruz. How many car rides is substantially? Is it 1,1671is it 2, is it 10? How many?1672    Mr. Arkush. I am not--a single individual couldn't possibly1673contribute enough. The point is----1674    Chair Cruz. Well, what about if say you're a Democrat1675politician who present but--what about if you're a Democrat1676politician----1677    Mr. Arkush. Do you want me to answer this?1678    Chair Cruz. What about if you're a Democrat politician who1679flies private jet?1680    Senator Whitehouse. It would be helpful if you're asking1681the questions. Doesn't he get to answer?1682    Chair Cruz. He gets to answer them in my time. Just like he1683gets to answer them in your time when you are asking them.1684    Mr. Arkush. It seems like I don't.1685    Chair Cruz. So, what about democrat politicians who fly1686private planes all the time? People like John Kerry who say,1687``For someone like me, a private jet is the only reasonable way1688to travel.'' John Kerry has the climate footprint of a small1689town in Tennessee. Would you prosecute John Kerry for murder?1690    Mr. Arkush. So, depending on how you calculate it, U.S.1691fossil fuel company or the oil majors, private oil majors are1692responsible for around----1693    Chair Cruz. So, my question was----1694    Mr. Arkush [continuing]. Half of global emission.1695    Chair Cruz. My question was, would you prosecute John Kerry1696for murder?1697    Mr. Arkush. Obviously not. No.1698    Chair Cruz. Okay. So, Democrat politicians are exempted?1699    Mr. Arkush. There is no individual who is----1700    Chair Cruz. Democrat activists are exempted?1701    Mr. Arkush. I'm not going after people for carbon1702footprints. The whole thing is actually----1703    Chair Cruz. Well, why not though? Under your principle,1704carbon is killing us. You claim it is homicide. By the way,1705this is a whack job theory, you teach in law school. If one of1706your law students wrote this on an exam, any law professor--1707General Kobach, you were a law professor for years. If I wrote1708it's homicide, lock them up. What grade would you give me and1709why?1710    Mr. Kobach. Yes. It wouldn't be a good one. Part of the1711problem here is the same problem that the Baltimore judge in1712rejecting all of the eight claims brought by the city of1713Baltimore pointed out with regard to public nuisance theory.1714And that is, it's not just the company that took the oil out of1715the ground. The individual consumer made a choice to use it as1716well.1717    She dismissed all their claims, rejected their attempt to1718stretch public nuisance doctrine to cover ``The results of1719fossil fuel usage and gas emissions by third parties located1720all over the world.'' You can't put the blame either in a1721homicide case or in a public nuisance case just on the company1722that extracted the oil from the ground because everybody's1723using it and we're all involved in it.1724    And that's why it doesn't fit homicide easily and it1725doesn't fit public nuisance easily either.1726    Mr. Arkush. With all due respect. I don't think that Mr.1727Kobach is familiar with the relevant law in this case. A1728defendant in a homicide case can't defend by saying somebody1729used my products exactly as I intended them to while I was1730lying to them about it----1731    Chair Cruz. So, you're saying we should prosecute you for1732murder?1733    Mr. Arkush. No.1734    Chair Cruz. Because you drove an automobile here?1735    Mr. Arkush. No. I'm saying----1736    Chair Cruz. Well, you said you couldn't use a defense, the1737fact that someone else does it----1738    Mr. Arkush. I'm saying the----1739    Chair Cruz. You contributed, you're a murderer--under your1740wacky theory, you're a murderer too.1741    Mr. Arkush. I'm not sure I should be trying to speak. Can I1742finish a sentence?1743    Chair Cruz. For once we agree. Senator Whitehouse.1744    Senator Whitehouse. Will you allow the witness to answer1745without interruption during my time?1746    Chair Cruz. It's your time. You're welcome to----1747    Senator Whitehouse. You just interrupted him during my1748time----1749    Chair Cruz. You're welcome to sing. Now, he was actually--1750it was the end of my time. You're welcome to sing or you1751conduct poetry, an ambic pentamete. You can blow a kazoo, you1752can do whatever you wish.1753    Senator Whitehouse. Go ahead and answer the question that1754you were prevented from answering.1755    Mr. Arkush. Yes, I'm a little lost now as to where we were.1756But my point was that a fossil fuel producer in a criminal1757trial would not be able to say--I mean, there, there's legal1758doctrine on this, right? You can say there's an intervening1759third party, intervening circumstances that disrupt the chain1760of causation. You cannot say that when the third party, their1761actions were completely foreseeable.1762    Like for example, a consumer using your product exactly as1763you intended, you also can't use it when you defrauded them1764into using your product exactly as you intended. So, with all1765due respect, the Baltimore company is wrong.1766    Senator Whitehouse. That is the company can't use that1767defense?1768    Mr. Arkush. Sorry?1769    Senator Whitehouse. The company can't use that defense when1770it is on the delivery end of the fraud?1771    Mr. Arkush. It's meritless in a criminal context anyway.1772    Senator Whitehouse. Yes. And the tobacco case focused on1773key organizations, not everybody who smoked and gave secondhand1774smoke, lawyers know how to sort through this stuff. And I think1775that we really do have to take the harm that is being caused by1776these companies and protected behind the $700 billion a year1777annual subsidy that Congress showers them with every year.1778    And that motivates them to be so influential and so1779intrusive into Congress. So involved in elections, spending so1780many millions of dollars in dark money and in direct money. And1781in the meantime, just to use the very simplest example of the1782articles I put into the record, here comes an insurance crisis1783that's already fully engaged in Florida, that is hitting1784southern Mississippi, southern Louisiana, southern Texas.1785    It's hitting all the coastal States as predicted by the1786chief economist of Freddie Mac. Not a green group, not a1787Chinese communist group, as predicted by that chief economist,1788as predicted by the chairman of the Federal Reserve, far from1789green, as predicted by the CEO of American AON, as predicted by1790the board of Allianz, the biggest insurance company on the1791planet.1792    You can make as much fun as you like of an article that Mr.1793Arkush wrote but that doesn't take away from the fundamental1794fact that the earth's natural systems are being badly degraded1795by fossil fuel and that the fossil fuel industry knew that this1796would happen. And that for years knowing that it would happen,1797they lied about it. They set up whole organizations to lie1798about it even more.1799    They fund an entire armada of front groups whose job is to1800lie about it. And I do believe that it's proper to hold a1801corporation accountable for that kind of misconduct. Mr.1802Arkush.1803    Mr. Arkush. There are two things I'd like to say. One, it1804does seem like we can all agree on one thing, which is that1805group spending money to influence other people's behavior can1806be problematic. And sometimes people don't do things for the1807right reasons. They do things because they're getting paid,1808right? And there is almost nobody in the world with more1809resources than the fossil fuel industry to be paying people to1810do their bidding.1811    And I think just as important to note that as Senator1812Whitehouse noted one of them alone, ExxonMobil last year,1813almost a billion dollars in profits a day, every day. That's1814more than twice the amount that was on that chart that you held1815up Mr. Chairman for all the environmental groups. So right.1816    ExxonMobil, twice that amount every single day. That's just1817one of the oil companies I'm very concerned about spending1818money on political influence. And it's a lot more on that side.1819Second, I just want to say my understanding of this theory1820about China is that--and tell me if I'm wrong. Is that China is1821ahead of the U.S. right now and in manufacturing, some aspects1822of renewable energy, right?1823    Solar panels, batteries. Ahead on critical minerals, right?1824And I guess the theory is, I guess therefore they want to1825stifle our fossil fuels so that we're dependent on them for1826their renewable energy. I don't know why they'd want to stifle1827fossil fuels when China is like a huge buyer of U.S. oil and1828gas. Some of it they burn, some of it they flip. They flip a1829lot of the oil and gas at a profit. If we are losing a1830competition with China on the technologies of tomorrow, we1831should be investing in those technologies and funding them,1832right?1833    Imagine in the late 50's and early 60's when we were1834worried we were losing the space race with the Soviet Union.1835Imagine if instead of saying in 1962, Kennedy saying, ``We're1836going to go to the moon by the end of this decade,'' he said,1837``Do you know what? We're going to defund all of aeronautics1838and stay on the ground.'' Is that the way to make America1839strong and great? I don't think so.1840    And I wish that you would all join the people who are1841trying to make America strong and great today and tomorrow by1842funding the industries and the energy sources of tomorrow that1843are cleaner, safer, and cheaper like renewables.1844    Chair Cruz. Thank you to each of the witnesses. A final1845question, Mr. Walter. You're an expert on special interests,1846when it comes to dark money, political funding. Where is more1847of it found on the left or on the right? What are the biggest1848funders?1849    Mr. Walter. It's considerably more on the left depending on1850how you want to define dark money. Oddly enough, people who use1851the term a lot tend not to define it with any legal precision.1852But there is the largest of any such entity left or right1853again, is the vast multi-billion-dollar network run by Arabella1854advisors with hundreds of millions of dollars from the foreign1855billionaire Mr. Wyss.1856    Chair Cruz. And oddly enough, my Democrat colleagues never1857seem concerned by that massive money on the left, which is1858considerably larger than the money that is supporting1859Republicans.1860    Senator Whitehouse. Again, since you're speaking about me,1861that's also not true. I am the actual lead sponsor of an Act1862that would end dark money and it wouldn't end it just on your1863side. It would end it for everyone. Everyone would know who is1864funding people's campaigns. And every Democrat votes for that1865bill to get rid of dark money. And every Republican votes1866against that bill to protect dark money, largely because the1867fossil fuel industry's dark money is the lifeblood of the1868Republican political operation and you don't want to see that1869exposed.1870    Chair Cruz. So that happens to be factually false. But I'll1871point out, every year I've been in the Senate, I've introduced1872legislation called the Super PAC Elimination Act that does two1873very simple things.1874    One, it allows unlimited individual contributions directly1875to Federal campaigns, as is the case in State law and many1876States, including my home State of Texas. And two, it requires1877immediate 24-hour disclosure of any contributions. As a1878practical matter, Super PACs would go away. And every time1879we've tried to vote on that, the Democrats uniformly oppose it.1880    I want to thank each of the witnesses for being here. This1881concludes our hearing. Written questions can be submitted for1882the record until Wednesday, July 2 at 5 p.m. and I will ask the1883witnesses to answer and return the questions to the Committee1884by July 16 at 5 p.m. This hearing is adjourned.1885    [Whereupon, at 4:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]1886    [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]1887   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]18881889                            A P P E N D I X18901891The following submissions are available at:18921893  https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61887/pdf/CHRG-1894    119shrg1895    61887-add1.pdf18961897Submitted by Chair Cruz:18981899 Ferate, Anthony J., letter.......................................     219001901 Convert Chinese Communist Lawfare, posters.......................    1019021903 IRS, statement...................................................    1419041905Submitted by Ranking Member Whitehouse:19061907 How much is your Texas home worth, Houston Chronicle.............    5219081909 Inside the costly new reality of insuring a home in Texas,1910    Houston Chronicle.............................................    6319111912 See where extreme weather is pushing up home insurance costs in1913    Texas, Houston Chronicle......................................    8519141915 Texas has a home insurance crisis, Houston Chronicle.............    9519161917                                 [all]