Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 155, submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions which were submitted earlier today: S. Res. 156, S. Res. 157, and S. Res. 158.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 16, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 19, which was received from the House.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 18, S. 94.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate on the bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 58, S. Res. 35.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the committee-reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 59, S. Res. 67.

Mr. President, I know of no further debate.

Mr. President, I further ask that the committee- reported amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble, as amended, be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 60, S. Res. 95.

Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order, following the remarks of Senator Hirono, and under the provisions of S. Res. 155, and do so as a further mark of respect for the late Fritz Hollings, former Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, yesterday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg addressed a joint session of Congress--the first Secretary General ever to do so.

The Secretary General is in Washington this week marking NATO's 70th anniversary. Created after World War II, NATO is a political and military alliance of European and North American democracies.

Since its founding in 1949, NATO has been a bulwark for freedom, for peace, and for security around the world. For 70 years--70 years--NATO has been a bedrock of U.S. security.

The United States stands firmly behind NATO's collective defense outlined in article 5 of its founding treaty.

As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and the Senate NATO Observer Group, I recently traveled to Brussels, Belgium, for meetings at NATO headquarters.

I met with Ambassador Hutchison and NATO officials to discuss ways to strengthen the alliance.

These briefings reaffirmed for me that now, more than ever, America needs a strong NATO alliance. For our safety, for the safety of our allies, we must support and we must strengthen NATO.

The alliance has expanded from an original 12 to now 29 member nations. These allies are our friends in times of peace, they are our partners in times of turmoil, and they are our defenders in times of war.

In armed conflicts around the world, NATO serves as a force multiplier for all of its members. After the September 11, 2001, attacks, NATO allies sent tens of thousands of troops to fight alongside our U.S. forces in Afghanistan. NATO is helping the United States defeat ISIS in Iraq and in Syria, and its role in the global war on terrorism continues to expand.

At the same time, NATO members are working together in Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression. NATO isn't just protecting Europe from Russian interference; it is serving U.S. security interests in the region.

Given the emerging threats around the globe, NATO must have the tools and the resources it needs to deter our enemies. This means that all members need to recommit themselves to NATO's mission and fully meet their pledges.

Secretary Stoltenberg has focused on meeting alliance targets through ``cash, capabilities, and contributions.'' That is what we discussed in Belgium, it is what he discussed yesterday, and that has been his focus--cash, capabilities and contributions.

At the Wales summit in 2014, every NATO country agreed to spend a minimum of 2 percent of their GDP on defense. The United States continues to pay more than its fair share--about 22 percent of NATO's entire budget and more than 3 percent of our Nation's GDP.

President Trump, to his credit, has pressed NATO and our allies to bear the full share of their burden, both financially and militarily. NATO's Secretary General projects that the alliance will spend $100 billion more on defense by the year 2020.

Now, 22 NATO nations have already increased their defense spending since the 2014 summit in Wales. In 2014, only three allies met the Wales summit spending target; seven met that target in 2018. Still, 22 allies are falling short of the 2 percent target. They must contribute more if the alliance is to meet its financial goals and provide a capable and credible deterrent.

This is especially important as NATO faces more formidable foes. It is critical for their contributions to fund military readiness, to develop new capabilities, and to improve alliance cohesion.

NATO allies and partners are increasingly involved in terms of doing more with their troop contributions as well. Allies and partners now contribute more than half the troops in NATO missions.

We have made real progress on burden sharing, and today we celebrate 70 years of NATO achievements. NATO has helped bring about the democratic and economic transformation of Central and Eastern Europe. NATO has enabled European and Canadian soldiers to fight alongside U.S. forces on the frontlines of the war on terror. NATO supported U.S. sanctions against Russia and insisted on Russia's compliance with international law. Without a doubt, NATO is the most successful security alliance in our Nation's history.

The United States remains as committed to NATO's mission today as when it was founded 70 years ago. We want a strong NATO serving as a cornerstone of international freedom, peace, and security for another 70 years.

I yield the floor.

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

I ask unanimous consent that all time expires.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Nicole Nason to serve as Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The Federal Highway Administration plays a central role in America's mobility. The administration is the lead partner to State and local transportation programs that maintain and improve our Nation's roads, highways, and bridges. It has been without a Senate-confirmed leadership director for far too long.

America's transportation infrastructure faces a number of challenges. Authorization of the Federal highway programs are going to expire at the end of September of 2020. We need to work together in Congress to write and pass a bipartisan highway infrastructure bill that upgrades America's roads and bridges.

The Environment and Public Works Committee, which I chair, has already begun the bipartisan process of drafting this legislation. The Federal Highway Administration needs a strong Administrator in the office, one who can work with Congress on the development and implementation of highway infrastructure legislation.

Nicole Nason is the right person for the job. She is well qualified, and brings impressive experience in transportation policy to this critically important position.

Under President Bush, she served as Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. That is the Department of Transportation's top road safety official.

Before that, she served as the Department of Transportation's Assistant Secretary for Government Affairs. In that role, she played a key part in negotiating the bipartisan passage of a 5-year highway reauthorization bill.

Ms. Nason most recently served as the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of Administration, a position where she has managed nearly 2,000 employees and contractors.

Ms. Nason has won praise from a wide variety of groups. Helen Witty is the national president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. This is what she stated:

Nicole is a true champion of highway safety and will be an

asset to the Department of Transportation as the Federal

Highway Administration Administrator. On behalf of MADD, I

wholeheartedly endorse her for this position.

The Associated General Contractors of America had this to say:

Ms. Nason is a superb choice to fulfill the Federal Highway

Administration's leadership role in improving mobility on our

nation's highways.

The Governors Highway Safety Association has stated:

Throughout her career, Ms. Nason has demonstrated a clear

commitment to public service and, during her tenure as

Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA) a dedication to advancing highway

safety.

Confirming Ms. Nason to be Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration will be an important step in supporting our Nation's highways, roads, and bridges.

The Environment and Public Works Committee recognized this when we reported her nomination by voice vote on February 5. That has been nearly 2 months ago. It shouldn't take this long to confirm such a highly qualified nominee to such an important position.

Nicole Nason will be an excellent Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration. I encourage every Senator to vote to confirm her.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as we celebrate Women's History Month, I am proud to spotlight Wyoming's great history and achievements for women's equality.

Wyoming is the ``Equality State''--the first State to give women the right to vote and hold public office. We actually did it before statehood. Long before statehood, in 1869, the Wyoming Territory was the first to grant women the right to vote.

Louisa Ann Swain of Laramie became the first woman in the United States to vote in a general election in 1870, and Wyoming insisted on protecting women's right to vote as a precondition for even joining the Union in 1890.

Now, that is not all. The first elected woman Governor in the United States, Nellie Taylor Ross, was Wyoming's 14th Governor.

Wyoming women continue to hold key elected offices today, with strong leaders like U.S. Representative Liz Cheney.

The State owes a debt of gratitude to all of these extraordinary women leaders.

The Green New Deal

Now I would like to turn to this week's debate over the Democrats' so-called Green New Deal.

The Green New Deal isn't about protecting our environment. It is about increasing the size and scope of the Federal Government.

Every Democrat Senator running for President supports the Green New Deal. They have cosponsored it--each and every one of them, every single one.

By cosponsoring the Green New Deal, these Senators have shown Americans what they actually do support as candidates and as an agenda for America, and that is massively increasing the size of government.

This year the Federal Government is projected to spend over $4 trillion. That amount includes everything--Social Security, national defense, Medicare, all of it. If we were to pass the Green New Deal, it would cost up to $93 trillion over the next 10 years. That is $9.3 trillion a year--more than double what our government currently spends.

So, you see, the Green New Deal would massively expand the Federal Government, and that is exactly what Democrat Senators running for President want and plan to do, if elected. Don't be confused by Senate Democrats' ducking this vote on the Green New Deal. This is where Democrats would take our country if they were to retake the White House.

The Green New Deal would bankrupt our Nation, would wreak havoc, and would wreck the economy.

Republicans' pro-growth, pro-jobs policies have strengthened the economy and improved the lives of American families in their everyday lives at home. Because of tax relief, millions of families have more money now in their pockets to decide what to spend, what to save, and what to invest.

The Green New Deal plan would eliminate fossil fuels by requiring 100 percent renewable, carbon-free energy in just 10 years. Talk about having extra money in your pocket to fill your gas tank, but just putting gas in the car would be extremely difficult if the Green New Deal were to come to pass.

On the issue of climate change, climate change is real, but the Green New Deal is unrealistic. While it is important, in 2017 wind and solar energy generated just 8 percent of our electricity. Should we have more? Yes, but 8 percent of what we need is certainly inadequate.

Affordable and reliable fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, power three out of five U.S. homes and businesses. Excluding fossil fuels would snuff out the bright lights of Americans' prosperity. It would threaten national security. It would threaten jobs. It would threaten our independence from foreign energy, and all Americans' higher standard of living.

What Democrats are proposing is essentially a pipe dream. It is no surprise that Democrats have yet to provide a cost estimate. They don't want Americans to know that the Green New Deal could cost up to $93 trillion over the next 10 years. That is roughly $65,000 each and every year for each and every family in America.

The Nation is already over $22 trillion in debt. So how are they planning to pay for this? By doing what they often plan to do--raising taxes.

Paying for a $93 trillion bill would empty just about every Americans' savings account in the country, and let's not forget that the Green New Deal would not actually solve the problems they are trying to solve. Really, the proposal amounts to unrealistic economic disarmament.

Plus, U.S. economic decline would harm the environment. That is what we are hearing from the Green New Deal. It would be unilateral harm to our economy and no improvement to the overall global climate. They want it done immediately. They want it done drastically. It is a level of alarm that is not in any way called for.

When you think about the American economy and what we are able to do in this country, it is a strong economy that allows for a clean environment. The stronger the economy, often the cleaner the environment is. That is certainly the case here, when you compare us around the world to other countries and their economies and their environments.

The label ``Made in America'' means more than just the country of origin. It means the better the environment. We are being asked to destroy--that is what the Democrats are asking us to do with this Green New Deal--our strong, growing, and improving economy and allow the largest polluters in the world to grow at our expense.

Right now, 13 percent of emissions comes from the United States, but 33 percent comes from China and from India, and emissions in the United States have been declining over the last dozen years, while they continue to go up in China and India and in other locations around the world.

Why do Democrats want to do this? Well, they would like to engineer a big government takeover--or, I should say, as they say, transformation--of the U.S. economy.

There is a real solution that will not wreck our economy, will not hurt our Nation, will not hurt people's jobs, and will not hurt American families. The solution is not taxation. It is not regulation. It is innovation. Republicans continue to work, and we do it in a bipartisan way to advance innovative strategies for reducing carbon emissions.

First, we are working to promote carbon capture, and then using that carbon and sequestering it, taking it away. That means taking carbon out of the atmosphere and using it productively. We can use it for medical projects, construction projects, and for extracting oil. You can push the carbon dioxide into the ground in the area of oil wells and get out more oil, as a result, leaving the carbon dioxide underground.

Last year, the Senate passed the bipartisan FUTURE Act. It was signed into law, and it expands tax credits for carbon capture facilities.

Now we are advancing the bipartisan USE IT Act, which will help to turn carbon that has been captured into valuable products.

A second way Republicans are working in a bipartisan way to reduce emissions is by supporting nuclear power. Nuclear power generates about 60 percent--60 percent--of American-produced carbon-free energy. By far, that is the largest source of American carbon-free energy. It is much more than double solar and wind power combined.

In late December, we passed the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This legislation had Republican and Democratic support and was signed into law by President Trump. This law will help innovators develop advanced nuclear reactors that are safer, cleaner, and more versatile. That is what we need to do. It is simplifying the process on the front end for the innovators to build state-of-the-art nuclear reactors. These advanced reactors are going to power the next generation of nuclear plants. We need them to expand the use of carbon- free energy. We also need to maintain our existing nuclear powerplants, and Congress needs to address how we manage nuclear waste. Nuclear power is an area with broad bipartisan support. We must continue to work together on nuclear power.

A third approach that Republicans are taking to reduce emissions is increasing the use of renewable energy. Republicans have repeatedly passed tax incentives to promote clean energy. These include tax credits for wind and solar panels, as well as incentives for biodiesel and compressed natural gas.

We know all these innovative strategies work. We see it in America's unparalleled success in reducing emissions. This progress is not the result of taxation; it is not the result of regulation; it is the result of American innovation. Our cutting-edge technologies can be adopted globally.

Republicans want to make America's energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, while investing in promising innovations for the future. Democrats want more government control. That is what they asked for with the Green New Deal--control of our economy and control of our lives, despite the cost to American families and American taxpayers.

Let's continue to pass real climate solutions, not these far-left fantasies. Let's focus on what works for our environment and our economy, not what works for Democrats who are running for President.

Republicans are going to continue to oppose unrealistic, unworkable, and unaffordable proposals like the Green New Deal. It is a big green bomb. The Democrats are ducking it, they are dodging it, and they are now distancing themselves from it by showing up on the floor of the Senate--those who have cosponsored it, those who have gone on TV and on the hustings around the country saying they would support it and be for it--and voting not for it but present. The Democrats are ducking this for a good reason: They know what a disaster it would be for our Nation.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I have 9 requests for committees to meet

during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders.

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

committee on commerce, science, and transportation

The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing ``Our blue economy, success and opportunities.''

committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs

The Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Chairman's housing reform outline, part II.''

committee on foreign relations

The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 10 a m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Robert A. Destro, of Virginia, to be Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Keith Krach, of California, to be an Under Secretary (Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment), to be United States Alternate Governor of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and to be United States Alternate Governor of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and United States Alternate Governor of the Inter-American Development Bank, and David Stilwell, of Hawaii, to be an Assistant Secretary (East Asian and Pacific Affairs), all of the Department of State.

committee on rules and administration

The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Annual oversight of the Smithsonian Institutions.''

committee on small business and entrepreneurship

The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a business meeting on pending legislation.

subcommittee on seapower

The Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing.

subcommittee on strategic forces

The Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

subcommittee on aviation, operations, safety, and security

The Subcommittee on Aviation, Operations, Safety, and Security of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 3 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of commercial aviation.''

subcommittee on water and power

The Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 27, 2019, at 2.30 p.m., to conduct a hearing.

Madam President.

Madam President, I object.

Madam President.

Thank you, Madam President.

Madam President, many Democrats have called climate change the greatest challenge of our time.

House Representative Ocasio-Cortez is the Green New Deal's lead sponsor. She calls climate change ``our World War II.'' She said: ``The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.'' Senator Schumer said that climate change is ``an existential threat.''

When the Green New Deal was introduced just last month, Democrats lined up to support it, to cosponsor it, and to agree with it. Senator Markey of Massachusetts called it ``the kind of generational commitment that we need to transform our economy and our democracy.'' Every Democratic Senator running for President of the United States is a cosponsor--every single one.

When Leader McConnell called for a vote on the Green New Deal, Senator Schumer said: ``Go for it. Bring it on.'' He said it right here on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Presidential candidate Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota agreed, saying that she will vote yes. That is how she said she will vote--will vote yes. We will see what she does today.

Well, today, the Senate will vote on the Green New Deal. All Senators will have a chance to go on the record, a chance to show whether they support this radical approach. But rather than voting for the Green New Deal that they introduced and cosponsored, it sounds like some Democrats are trying to run away from a vote on something they previously embraced.

If so many Democratic Party leaders support the Green New Deal, why aren't they willing to vote for it and stand up behind it today? The answer is obvious: The Democrats are ducking the vote. But why? The answer is pretty simple: The Green New Deal is unaffordable, it is unworkable, and it is unpopular.

When you add up all of the costs and the 10-year price tag of $93 trillion, that is enough to bankrupt America. The cost is astronomical. It would hit every American really hard--about $65,000 per family per year. That would empty just about every bank account in America. I believe it would drive a stake right through the heart of our strong and healthy and growing economy. The Green New Deal would massively increase the role of government in our lives and the size of government, the expense of government.

Let's be honest. The climate is changing. It continues to change. It requires a serious response--a serious response. The Green New Deal is not that response.

This plan would eliminate fossil fuels. It would require 100 percent renewable energy, carbon-free energy, in just 10 years. The goal is to meet all of our energy demands in the United States through ``clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources.'' We need more renewable energy, but the goal of going from where we are to where they want to be is absolutely impossible in the period of time outlined.

Robert Blohm from the North American Electric Reliability Corporation wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``An all-renewable power grid is destined to collapse.''

America can't tolerate a collapsed power grid. Plus, it wouldn't solve the problem. Turning off America's economy will not lower global emissions. America is leading the way in reducing emissions--reducing emissions.

Since 2007, U.S. energy emissions have fallen by 14 percent, while global emissions continue to rise. In 2017 the United States produced just 13 percent of global emissions and China and India together produced over 33 percent. So emissions are going to continue to climb until these countries take action. Emissions in the United States continue to decline.

Shutting down our energy would also harm American workers. That is why major labor unions oppose the Green New Deal. The AFL-CIO labor union, which represents 12.5 million workers, says: ``We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families.'' I agree.

Even former President Obama's Energy Secretary, Ernie Moniz, called the Green New Deal impractical. He said it would hurt American progress in reducing emissions. That progress came from innovation, not from massive government taxation and regulation.

Congress must continue to support technologies like nuclear power and carbon capture utilization--things that we know make a difference--and we have done this in a bipartisan way in these areas. I want to continue to work with Democrats to find real solutions. We have passed legislation in a bipartisan way for advanced nuclear powerplants, for carbon capture and sequestration, and for using the carbon in productive ways, whether it is for medication or whether it is for construction products.

The Green New Deal is not the solution for America. It is a big green bomb that will blow a hole in our strong, healthy, and growing economy. That is exactly why Democrats aren't voting for it. That is exactly why Democrats

are ducking and dodging and distancing themselves from this so-called Green New Deal, because it is a radical plan, and it is exactly why Democrats are running away--running away--from the Green New Deal. I think we are going to see it today--running away as fast as they can.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I know the vote is scheduled at 4 o'clock. I am happy to answer a question.

Madam President, as a matter of fact, I would say to my friend, the Senator from New York, that he asked me those three identical questions on this floor about 2 or 3 weeks ago, and my answer today is the same as it was then. You are welcome to go back to the Congressional Record. I recommended this to the Senator from New York, and I bet I wrote in the New York Times in December that said: Yes, I do believe that climate change is real, and, yes, I believe that humans contribute to it, and, yes, I believe we have a responsibility to do something about it.

I highlighted the role of innovation, not taxation or regulation, in coming to those solutions. I highlighted legislation that has passed the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and was even signed into law by the President, something called the FUTURE Act, which works on capturing carbon dioxide and using it productively. We talked about a bill called the USE IT Act, which is now coming through the committee. We are working on it. It has bipartisan support, and it passed last session. It didn't get all the way to a signature. We talked about the future of nuclear power and the advanced nuclear powerplants that are being done, and we paved the way for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to do things because nuclear power has zero emissions.

These are bipartisan pieces of legislation, passed with overwhelming support by the Senate and the House and signed by the President. These areas with carbon capture and nuclear power works are things that actually President Obama's Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz, testified to the Senate Energy Committee are the two things that actually can work at scale. Anything else that the United States, I will tell you, does unilaterally, will not contribute to a solution because emissions from the United States are only 13 percent of all the emissions in the world.

I would once again recommend to the Senator from New York an op-ed that I had written about dealing with climate change through innovation, not regulation or taxation, and I hope, in that way, that I have answered the Senator's three questions.

I would say to the Senator from New York that if he is actually serious about discussing climate change on the floor of the Senate and looking for solutions, then, what he ought to do today is instruct his Members--and I believe he may have instructed them to vote present--to vote to get on the bill, to get on this to discuss it and to debate it. But it doesn't sound like even the cosponsors are willing to stand up and vote for something they have cosponsored. A dozen of them have done it.

Three of them were leading a rally outside the steps of the Capitol within the last couple of hours, with one Senator chanting: What about the Green New Deal and having a vote on it? When do we want it? And the crowd was chanting: Now.

It will be instructive to see how those Senators--and one of these was a candidate for President--vote when their name is called as the roll is called here on today's vote on the Green New Deal.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I would like to point out to my friend and colleague that the statement I had made earlier about my belief goes back a long time--that the climate is changing--to the point that one of his colleagues, Jeff Bingaman, a Senator from New Mexico, chaired the Energy Committee when he and I cosponsored legislation dealing with carbon and carbon capture and putting together an XPRIZE-type program. This is something I have long spoken about and understand.

I also hear the Senator from New York essentially trying to strip the EPW Committee of the jurisdiction we have over climate change. That is the wrong approach when we have made real progress working together not just on bills but on bills signed into law that are making a difference today.

This resolution the minority leader just introduced is an attempt by the Democrats to once again duck and dodge and distance themselves from the Green New Deal vote this afternoon. The Democrats seem to think that adding a layer of bureaucracy is an answer to every problem. That is the same instinct that gave us the Green New Deal. That climate is changing and humans play a role in the changing climate, there is no question in my mind about that.

I am going to continue to work closely with the ranking member of the committee, Senator Carper from Delaware, to pass meaningful legislation to promote nuclear power, carbon capture technologies, and to reduce emissions.

So Democrats can't hide from the fact that every Democratic Senator running for President has cosponsored the Green New Deal.

Here we are today, and I will just state that we have been passing bipartisan legislation. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee recently held a hearing on climate change. We do not need another committee. We don't need the Green New Deal; we need real solutions. For this reason, I object.

Madam President, I know that time has expired.

We had a hearing in the last couple of weeks. We had an expert in the specific area of carbon capture come to show how much more effective the technology has become. This is something I started working on 10 years ago. It is something researchers around the world are committed to because we are finding value in that carbon to create products that can be used either medically or for construction. The University of Wyoming has an integrated test center right next to a coal-fired powerplant, and the technology is there to take the carbon dioxide right from the stack and use it, some for enhanced oil recovery, some for production. They are continuing to work on the science of all of this.

Certainly, there are the climate alarmists who are out there, and it does seem that what they want to do is act immediately, drastically, and unilaterally in ways that will not solve the problem. It will hurt our country. It will hurt our economy. It will move the lifeblood of the U.S. economy to foreign countries, and I will do everything I can to make sure that doesn't happen.

Thank you. I know the time has expired.

Madam President, the Committee on Environment and Public Works has adopted rules governing its procedures for the 116th Congress. Pursuant to Rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the committee rules be printed in the Record.