Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the service of the adjutant general of the Wyoming National Guard, MG Luke Reiner, to the State of Wyoming and our Nation.

In 1982, Major General Reiner enlisted in the Army National Guard. As a born leader, Luke was commissioned as an officer in 1986 and subsequently joined the Wyoming Army National Guard in 1987. Coming to Wyoming was the best decision of his career.

Major General Reiner wore many hats and served at every level of the Wyoming Army National Guard. From his first job as the counter fire officer of the 115th Field Artillery Brigade to the executive officer of the 2-300 Field Artillery Battalion, he rose to take command of the 115th Fires Brigade. Luke's operational experience included a deployment to Kuwait where he commanded Camp New York in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Governor Matt Mead appointed Luke Reiner as adjutant general, and he took command on April 1, 2011. Luke and I got to know each other very well over years as we worked together to secure funding to modernize the C-130H fleet. Major General Reiner was the Wyoming Guard's advocate in Washington at the National Guard Bureau and the Pentagon. He frequently traveled back to Washington and served on various National Guard committees and counsels.

Every Thanksgiving, I travel overseas to visit with Wyoming servicemen and women deployed around the world. Governor Mead, Major General Reiner, and I spent Thanksgiving with the 133rd Engineering Company stationed in Bahrain in 2013. It was an honor to eat Thanksgiving dinner with these young men and women alongside Major General Reiner.

On March 28, 2019, Luke will officially retire as Wyoming's adjutant general and hand the colors over to BG Gregory Porter. Major General Reiner will remain in Wyoming. I look forward to continue working closely with him in his role as director of the Wyoming Department of Transportation.

Luke epitomizes the ``Code of the West.'' Live each day with courage. Take pride in your work. Do what needs to be done. We thank him for all he has done to keep Wyoming and our Nation safe.

Finally, I want to thank Luke's wife Devonna and his two daughters Heather and Holly for allowing Luke to serve Wyoming and this great Nation. We are forever thankful.

Mr. President, today I recognize the distinguished career of Pat Tyrrell. After more than 18 years of service, Pat is retiring as Wyoming's longest serving State engineer.

A Wyoming native, Pat grew up in Cheyenne. He attended the University of Wyoming in Laramie where he obtained a B.S. in mechanical engineering and an M.S. in civil engineering. He began his time in public service in 2001 when Governor Jim Geringer appointed Pat as Wyoming's State Engineer. During his tenure, he served under four Governors and became well known in the State, region, and Nation as an expert on all matters related to water resources.

Established under Wyoming's Constitution, the State engineer serves as the chief water official in Wyoming. With Wyoming situated astride the Continental Divide, the State provides the headwaters for four major river basins in the Western United States.

Charged with the regulation and administration of the water resources in Wyoming, Pat's duties as State engineer ranged from overseeing the permitting and adjudication of water rights, regulation of the use of water under the doctrine of prior appropriation, and representing the State on numerous boards, compacts, and commissions. These included Wyoming's commissioner to the Upper Colorado River Commission, the North Platte Decree Committee, Western States Water Council, and the Colorado River Salinity Control Forum. He often served in leadership roles and worked in cooperation with the other 17 Western States to manage and develop water resources.

Pat is known for his balanced approach to water resource management, ensuring compliance with the law while also protecting the interests of Wyoming water users. His expertise and influence were instrumental in resolving decades-long problems, such as the Big Horn General Adjudication.

As State engineer, he waded through thousands of water rights in the Big Horn Basin to bring clarity and certainty to Federal, Tribal, and State interests in the area and ultimately saw the end to a 37-year lawsuit. Pat's reflection on this case was emblematic of his philosophy to water management: ``If we can move water without any ill effect to existing users, we can make changes. But we need everybody at the table.''

Shortly after I joined the U.S. Senate, I experienced this philosophy firsthand. It was during a critical point in passing the Craig Thomas Snake Headwaters Legacy Act that Pat met in my office with key players who were negotiating the final language of the bill. With his calm demeanor and extraordinary understanding of Western water law, he was able to provide clarity to the meaning of certain text in the bill and assuage all in the room of the practicality of what the text said and what was contemplated. Shortly thereafter, agreement was reached, and the bill was signed into law. It became clear to me that one of Pat's greatest skills is he builds trust through his knowledge of the law and how it is applied and is able to accurately articulate how that application will or will not impact people's lives.

Pat has used this philosophy in interstate water negotiations. Known as the senior statesman on the river, Pat has been instrumental in many of the key decisions related to management of the Colorado River. Time after time, Pat has sought cooperation and coordination to balance the various needs and demands on the river. From hydropower production and ecosystem protection, to water storage and water delivery obligations, Pat has been instrumental in crafting creative solutions to ensure all needs are met.

In the face of nearly two decades of drought in the Colorado River basin, his expertise has been invaluable. He was instrumental in implementing the river's 2007 Guidelines and has been intimately engaged in development of the current Colorado River Drought Contingency Plan, which is currently being debated in Congress. As Wyoming's representative on the river, Pat focused on ensuring the needs met by the Colorado River today will be maintained for future generations.

In the same way Pat has looked out for Wyoming's future water needs, he has also sought to care for the development of Wyoming's future leaders. Late last year, he and his wife Barbara established a scholarship fund at the University of Wyoming to provide future students an education in engineering. Expertise and education in water management in States like Wyoming is invaluable, and we can only hope for more leaders like Pat.

Pat's service has reached every corner of the State. The history books will note his involvement in the 2001 Modified North Platte Decree, the Yellowstone River compact, which involved an 11-year Supreme Court lawsuit with the State of Montana, and many other

accomplishments, but those who worked with him will remember and hopefully carry on his gentle nature, deliberate thinking, and dedication to the law.

I invite all members of the Senate to join me in congratulating Pat in his retirement, wishing him well and his family much success in the future.

Mr. President, I come to the floor to discuss the so- called Green New Deal.

America needs every form of energy in order to succeed, but the Democrats' extreme Green New Deal would send our strong, healthy, and growing economy over a liberal cliff. This radical plan would eliminate fossil fuels by requiring 100-percent renewable, carbon-free fuels in just 10 years.

Clearly, we realize that the climate is changing and that the global community has a collective duty to deal with this and to address it. Renewables like wind and solar are certainly a key part of the solution, but still, in the United States today, wind and solar provide only 8 percent of our power. Abundant, reliable, and affordable fossil fuels, like coal and natural gas, power about three out of five U.S. homes and businesses. Excluding them would harm our national security; it would make us dependent on foreign energy; it would destroy jobs; and it would reduce our quality of life.

In a letter sent to the Green New Deal's sponsors, the AFL-CIO--the Nation's federation of labor unions that represents about 12\1/2\ million employees and 55 different unions--called the plan a threat to U.S. workers. The letter reads: ``We will not accept proposals that could cause immediate harm to millions of our members and their families.''

Those at the AFL-CIO also say the plan is not achievable or realistic, and I agree with them. By themselves, renewables can't keep the lights on, and an all-renewable energy electric power grid would collapse. This isn't serious environmental policy--it is a pipe dream.

The Democrats have yet to provide a cost estimate for the Green New Deal. One analysis by the former Director of the Congressional Budget Office estimates it could cost up to $93 trillion--with a ``t.'' That is more than the U.S. Government has spent in our Nation's entire history--combined. We are $22 trillion in debt right now. So how are we going to pay for it--by borrowing more money we don't have or by hiking taxes?

The crushing burden is going to fall the hardest on working families. To get to this number, it would drain every person's checkbook in America, starting with Warren Buffett and going all the way down. The Green New Deal would cost every American family as much as $65,000 a year every year. That is more than the average family makes in America. In Wyoming, where the average family's income is way above average, it would cost the family $61,000 a year.

Despite the heavy toll it would take, the Green New Deal would still fail to significantly lower the Earth's temperature. Already, America leads the world in reducing carbon emissions. In 2017, the U.S. produced just 13 percent of the global emissions, and China and India combined produced 33 percent.

Let's take a look at this from a global standpoint. To me, it doesn't make any sense at all to destroy our competitive economy and allow the biggest polluters to continue to prioritize growth at our expense. Backbreaking tax increases and heavyhanded mandates are not the answer. The solution is to promote free market innovation, and the Republicans continue to advance several innovative strategies for reducing emissions.

First, we are encouraging carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies. That means actually capturing carbon and using it productively for medical products, for construction products.

There are things we can actually do. Last year, we passed a bipartisan bill in this body that was signed into law. It is called the FUTURE Act, and it expands tax credits for capturing carbon.

The Clean Air Task Force calls it one of the most important bills for reducing global warming pollution in the last two decades.

Our carbon capture work continues with the bipartisan USE IT Act, which is going to help turn captured emissions into valuable products.

The other thing we are promoting is advanced nuclear power technologies. Nuclear power has helped lower emissions by providing most of America's carbon-free energy.

In late December, we passed the bipartisan Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act. This law will help innovators develop new-age nuclear reactors that are cheaper, better, and more reliable.

We also have extended the nuclear tax credit to speed completion of two new nuclear reactors. We are going to speed that completion--the first in a generation. Together they will prevent 10 million tons of emissions every year.

Third, we are encouraging an increase in the use of renewables. Republicans have repeatedly passed tax incentives to promote clean energy.

These include tax credits for wind, for solar panels, as well as incentives for biodiesel and compressed natural gas. The clean energy strategies that Republicans have been working on in a bipartisan way are working because America leads the world in reducing energy-related emissions.

Since 2007, U.S. emissions have been down 14 percent. This progress is the result of innovation. So let's continue to promote proven solutions. Let's reject the Democrats' Green New Deal as unreasonable, unworkable, and unaffordable.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I wish to celebrate the centennial of the Thermopolis, WY, Chamber of Commerce.

On March 23, the Thermopolis Chamber of Commerce celebrates their 100th anniversary at an annual banquet. What was once called the old Thermopolis Commercial Club incorporated in Hot Springs County as the Thermopolis Chamber of Commerce on February 4, 1919.

The future of the chamber was entrusted to elected directors: President Guy J. Gay, Vice President C.C. Beaver, and Directors Peter Sill, I.W. Wright, Harris Woods, A.W. Harrigan, and C.E. Stewart. Their guidance laid the foundation for a chamber that continues to foster the growth of business and sense of community in Thermopolis.

In an article dated February 7, 1919, the Thermopolis Independent Record wrote of the intended mission of the new chamber of commerce. ``We wish to create better business, better homes, better government, a better community and, in general, create a better brotherhood of man. We ask only what is fair. All who live here are the owners of our community and our community is our biggest asset.''

This spirit has driven Wyoming's people, businesses, and communities since its inception and will continue for generations to come. To further expand the chamber's embrace of community, on November 13, 1987, the Thermopolis Chamber of Commerce passed a resolution to change its name to the Thermopolis Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce. This combined all of Hot Spring County's corner of the Big Horn Basin into the chamber's mission.

The citizens of Thermopolis and Hot Springs County are blessed to live in a beautiful environment. Located in northern Wyoming and nestled on the world's largest mineral hot spring, Thermopolis is bordered by the Hot Springs State Park and the Wind River Canyon. The Owl Creek Mountains lie to the South while the Absaroka Range is to the West. The hot springs have been free to the public since purchase of the land from Native Americans in 1896.

The construction of the railroad had a major impact on the development of Hot Springs County. In 1910, the Burlington Railroad reached Thermopolis from the north. In 1911, the Burlington completed its line through Wind River Canyon to the south. This gave the entire Bighorn Basin much better connections with the rest of Wyoming. On February 9, 1911, the legislature approved establishment of Hot Springs County with Thermopolis as county seat. County government was organized in January 1913. The Thermopolis Chamber of Commerce was organized just a few years later in an office on South 5th Street.

For 100 years, the hard-working people at the chamber welcomed visitors to the area. One of today's main attractions is the rich prehistoric areas of Hot Springs County. The Wyoming Dinosaur Center offers a professional paleontological experience for the whole family. The center is an impressive 16,000-square-foot complex. It includes a world-class museum, working dig sites, and a modern preparation laboratory. Interpretive dig site tours allow visitors to walk the same ground as ancient dinosaurs and watch as scientists recover fossils from burial sites.

Hot Springs County as we know it today is vastly different from 100 years ago. It is this shared history between today's residents and those of the past that creates a special bond. Under direction and guidance from the chamber board of directors, executive director Meri Ann Rush and two office assistants, Kailey Dvorak and Kymberlee Oliver, continue the traditions of promoting Wyoming's people, businesses, and communities, started by the chamber 100 years ago. chamber board members are president Deb Tudor, vice president Pastor Sam Needham, treasurer Vivian Butchart, secretary Susan Linko, past president Greg Willson, Phillip Scheel, Barb Heinze, Robin Griffin, Kerri Manig, Amanda Kraushaar, Lana Nicodemus, Shelly Burrows, and middle school representative Jackson Reed.

In honor of the centennial of the Thermopolis Hot Springs County Chamber of Commerce, I invite my colleagues to see this wonderful place in person. Thermopolis is the hometown of my wife Bobbi and her brother Mike. Her parents, Bob and Jerry Brown, continue to live there today. Bob served Thermopolis as the longtime postmaster, as well as in World War 2 and the Korean war. Jerry owned a store downtown.

It is a great privilege to recognize this remarkable organization advancing Wyoming business and tourism. Bobbi joins me in extending our congratulations and gratitude to the Thermopolis Hot Springs Chamber of Commerce on their centennial celebration.

Madam President.

I object.

Madam President, I come to the floor today to ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the Senate Resolution that is at the desk, expressing the sense of the Senate that efforts to create a one-size-fits-all government-run healthcare system referred to as ``Medicare for All'' should be rejected.

Madam 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.

Madam President, I would just point out that what my friend and colleague from Hawaii described as a distraction is one of the key points of the Democratic Party.

Medicare for All, as they call it, is part of the so-called Green New Deal, which would bankrupt the country, which is unaffordable, unworkable. The fact is, this Medicare for All proposal, which so many of the Democrats have signed on to, would cost a minimum of $33 trillion and maybe a lot higher after what we have heard from the Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, as to the things he wants to do going beyond just Medicare for All.

We know that taxes would increase significantly under their proposal. We know that for Americans who have health insurance right now through their work, over 150 million Americans would lose that. We know that for people on Medicare, it would make their ability to use Medicare much harder. Then, of course, there would be the issue of rationing for care--the lines and the time to wait.

There was an article in the New York Times, an opinion piece by David Brooks, on Friday, talking about why the so-called Medicare for All will not work, and it made reference to healthcare in Canada.

I would say to the Presiding Officer that as a Senator who is also a surgeon, I operated on people from Canada in my practice prior to becoming a U.S. Senator and while practicing in Wyoming. People in Canada--where the healthcare is paid for by taxes but is free--I have taken care of people who couldn't afford to wait the amount of time it would take to get their free operation.

The article in the New York Times on Friday made reference to the fact that the waiting times are so long that after you are actually seen by the primary care provider in Canada, the wait time to get to see an orthopedic surgeon is 9 months--9 months. The Democrats are proposing something that has given the people of Canada a waiting time of 9 months.

So what we see under this Medicare for All proposal--and I have just introduced today this Senate resolution saying that Medicare for All should be rejected, and there should also be a rejection of the tax increases, the loss of choice, and the long lines that will come from this Democrat-sponsored proposal for Medicare for All.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today I recognize the distinguished career of Harry C. LaBonde, Jr., who, following decades of service in the State of Wyoming, is retiring this week.

Harry began his career shortly after graduating from college with a civil engineering degree. His first job allowed him to specialize on issues related to water and wastewater treatment. In 1991, he became the public works director for the city of Riverton. He went on to serve in the same position for the city of Laramie, until he later became city manager. For the past 15 years, Harry worked for the State of Wyoming, first as Wyoming's Deputy State Engineer and, more recently, as director of the Wyoming Water Development Office.

When at the State Engineer's office, Harry was involved with addressing a backlog of coal-bed methane reservoir permits in the Powder River Basin and transitioning the office from paper to electronic records, which required the modernization of millions of documents related to water and permits.

Wyoming was also facing severe water shortages due to an extended period of drought, requiring Harry to make the difficult decisions resulting from those shortages.

As director, Harry was instrumental in carrying out key responsibilities of Wyoming's Water Development Office: developing Wyoming's water resources through sound water planning and use. Water is a precious resource in the west. It is key to maintaining an excellent quality of life, economic security, and growth. Through Harry's leadership, numerous water storage projects are underway in the State, which will help Wyoming realize its water storage potential for today and to serve communities tomorrow. Whether it is through the reconstruction of the Middle Piney Dam or the storage enhancement project at Fontenelle Reservoir, Harry understands the importance of securing water resources in the State for future Wyoming generations.

In addition to reservoir planning and construction, Harry oversaw the development of river basin plans, weather modification projects, addressing watershed threats from wildfires, and carrying out the Small Water Project Program. Water affects everyone. Making sure Wyoming's water resources are used efficiently and responsibly for the benefit of the people of Wyoming is a responsibility Harry takes very seriously.

Harry's expertise and the strong relationships he has fostered throughout the basins we share with neighboring States is invaluable. He has contributed to a number of regional water supply efforts, including the Colorado River Basin States Salinity Control Program. He also serves as Wyoming's representative on the Platte River Recovery Implementation Program, a cooperative agreement with Nebraska, Colorado, and the Federal Government, to maintain water usage and development by implementing conservation practices for certain endangered and threatened fish and birds.

We are fortunate Harry chose early in his professional life to use his skills and talents to focus on water. He has dedicated his career to being a water advocate for the people of Wyoming and to finding long-term solutions to securing Wyoming's water needs. We are all better for his efforts.

I invite all members of the Senate to join me in congratulating Harry on his retirement, and wishing both him and his family much happiness and success in the future.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of John Fleming to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development.

The Assistant Secretary serves as the Administrator of the Economic Development Administration, the EDA. It is the only Federal Agency focused exclusively on economic development. It works directly with communities in regions to help them build capacity for economic development based on local business conditions as well as needs.

As a physician, entrepreneur, businessman, military veteran, and four-term Member of Congress, Dr. Fleming is incredibly well qualified to lead the EDA. Dr. Fleming has launched several companies, which today employ over 500 people in Louisiana. Dr. Fleming's nomination has drawn praise from numerous political, educational, and economic development leaders in his home State of Louisiana.

Don Pierson, the Secretary of Louisiana Economic Development, wrote:

Dr. Fleming has been instrumental in the development and

execution of projects, which have taken root in Northwest

Louisiana and spread across the United States.

He goes on to say:

His experience in public policy, business and his military

background serve as the right attributes for leading economic

development efforts.

The Environment and Public Works Committee reported Dr. Fleming's nomination favorably to the Senate with a substantial bipartisan majority, and we have done it twice, first on October 1, 2018, during the 115th Congress, and then next on February 5 of this year, after he was renominated this Congress. Under normal circumstances, Dr. Fleming would have been confirmed and in office last fall. Instead, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have blocked his nomination ever since it was first placed on the Senate Executive Calendar more than 155 days ago. Now, we had to file cloture and go through repeated delays on a well-qualified nominee who was twice reported by a substantial majority of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Dr. Fleming's treatment by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle is similar to the obstruction of John Ryder, whom we finally confirmed last week to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority. He had waited an unconscionable 388 days for a vote on the Senate floor.

In a column last Friday, the Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel noted that 388 days is ``100 days longer than it takes a new human being to come into the world.'' She continued:

Even at the last, Democrats were stringing out the process,

refusing unanimous consent to a floor vote, requiring

Republicans to file for cloture, which entails more delay.

Then she points out that ``after all that, [Mr. Ryder] was confirmed--by a voice vote with no audible dissent.''

Let's not delay any longer. Let's stop this spectacle of obstructing well-qualified nominees solely for obstruction's sake. I urge my colleagues to vote with me in support of the nomination of John Fleming to serve as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Economic Development and Administrator of the EDA.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.

Regular order.

Mr. MARKEY--where he got that bogus number of $93 trillion? That is a completely made-up number by the Koch brothers.

Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor to answer those specific questions, and I would point to an op-ed that I wrote for the New York Times last year. Perhaps the Senator from New York doesn't read his hometown newspaper, but there is an editorial in the New York Times of December 18: ``Cut Carbon Through Innovation, Not Regulation.'' It is a plan. Cut carbon through innovation, not regulation.

The question is, Do we believe the climate is changing? Do humans have an impact? The answer is yes to both. As a matter of fact, I wrote:

[The] climate is changing, and we, collectively, have a

responsibility to do something about it.

It is right here in the New York Times from December 18.

Second, the United States and the world will continue to

rely on affordable and abundant fossil fuels, including coal,

to power our economies for decades to come.

We need to also rely on innovation, not new taxes, not punishing global

agreements. That is the ultimate solution.

I will point out that this is something that I had written and submitted and published long before the so-called Green New Deal was ever introduced into Congress either in the House or in the Senate.

I go on to say:

People across the world are rejecting the idea that carbon

taxes and raising the cost of energy is the answer to

lowering emissions.

Because we know, as I go on:

In France, the government just suspended a planned fuel tax

increase after some of its citizens took to the streets in

protest.

It was every story on the news.

And in the United States, the results of [the] November

elections showed that these plans and other government

interventions are just as unpopular.

Voters in Washington State rejected the creation of an

expensive tax on carbon emissions. In Colorado, a ballot

measure to severely restrict drilling was defeated. And in

Arizona, voters rejected a mandate to make the state's

utilities much more dependent on renewable energy by 2030--

regardless of the cost to consumers.

I would point out that all three of those States elected liberal Democrats to Congress on election night.

In further answer to that question, I would point to USA TODAY, March 4, 2019. Today is the 6th, so we are talking Monday. Today is Wednesday. This is this week's paper, front page:

To a warming planet's rescue: Carbon Capture.

To the rescue of a warming planet.

In the race against climate change, scientists are looking

for ways to pull CO2 out of the Earth's atmosphere

and store it away.

And what they point to is bipartisan legislation passed by this body, passed by the House, and signed into law by President Trump focusing on carbon capture and sequestration. It talks about a program called 45Q. That is the FUTURE Act. One of the cosponsors from the other side of the aisle is on the floor right now. His name is mentioned, my name is mentioned in finding the solution.

There are Republican solutions and ideas that are focused on innovation, not regulation, not taxation, focused on freedom and the innovation that we have had.

So I just come to tell you, Mr. President, that there are solutions, and the Republicans will continue to offer them. We had a hearing most recently just last week on something called the USE IT Act--again, to capture carbon and to sequester it. We have been working on new-age nuclear power, working with leaders around the world. We passed that, and it was signed into law--an innovation bill for nuclear power, new- age nuclear power that will be in small reactors, safer reactors, cheaper to use, no carbon whatsoever.

So there are absolute solutions, and Republicans are going to continue to come to the floor, but we are not going to support something that would bankrupt the country, something that would raise the cost of energy for families, something that would drive people to the point of having to spend money they don't have, having our country borrow money we don't have, all at a time when you say, what is the cause? There are suggestions and numbers that have been raised. I haven't heard any numbers from the other side of the aisle.

So I come to the floor to tell you that Republicans have continued to offer solutions, and I have been offering some of these solutions for 10 years. It took us a while to get these into law, but they are working. They are working and have been identified as working. Even President Obama's former Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz, who came and testified to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said there are two things that would make a big difference. One is the new-age nuclear work that we are doing, and the other is carbon capture and sequestration. Those are large-scale products that work.

I see other colleagues on the floor. Do I have the floor right now?

Well, as long as I continue to have the floor, I would like to point out that we have a booming economy in this country. In just over a year, tax relief has helped create 3 million new jobs. Manufacturing jobs have increased for 10 straight months. There is the fact that we have more jobs available than there are people looking for jobs. We have a booming economy. I want to do nothing that is going to harm these people all across the country who are working to have an opportunity in such a strong, healthy, growing economy.

This Green New Deal--this Big Government takeover of the economy--it is masked as an environmental proposal. To me, it is radical. The president of the Laborers' International Union of North America calls it a ``bad deal.''

Take a look at America. We are leading the world in reducing carbon dioxide because of the technological and innovative techniques we have had. We know from what we hear about the Green New Deal that it is prohibitively expensive, with predictions of up to $93 trillion. The entire net worth of the United States--of all the homes and all the families and everything--is only $112 trillion, and this alone would cost $93 trillion. You can go by how much it is going to cost each individual family. It is completely unaffordable. It is not something that is workable. But it is so far outside the America mainstream even if it were affordable.

So what we have seen here is the Democrats take another hard left turn. Under this Green New Deal, in just 10 years, the Nation's energy system would undergo a Washington makeover. The Green New Deal would end the use of energy resources that currently provide power for three out of five homes and businesses in the United States. Think about the harm that would cause the economy. This Green New Deal mandates the use of expensive power sources that can't keep the lights on. Wind and solar are important. We need more renewable energy in this country. But right now, wind and solar provide less than 8 percent of our electricity.

Should we increase the use of renewables? Absolutely. But eliminating affordable coal and natural gas would be a costly mistake--and not only that, it is impossible to do. The electric grid can't handle it.

Last month, there was an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal titled ``The Green New Deal's Impossible Electric Grid,'' written by Robert Blohm of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. He writes that if the electric grid relies solely on renewable energy sources, ``the grid itself may collapse.''

That is not all we lose if the grid collapses. Our transportation system is in the crosshairs. The Green New Deal seeks to transform how Americans travel. It calls for an extensive and expensive national, high-speed rail system to replace air travel.

The State of California attempted to build a high-speed rail line between Los Angeles and San Francisco. It turns out the price was too high even for California. The Governor, Gavin Newsom, just recently canceled the line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Why? He said because of the massive cost. But it is all part of the Green New Deal. The question is, If California can't afford to build high-speed rail between two major cities, how can we afford to build a system that crisscrosses the country? We can't.

The Green New Deal doesn't stop at energy and travel; it extends to every building in the country. Homeowners are going to be forced to retrofit their houses, and businesses would have to do the same.

This is what massive government overreach looks like.

The rest of the world is going to continue to pollute even if the country were to adopt something as extreme as the Green New Deal. It would cancel all of the gains we have made in the United States by the fact that our emissions continue to go down. In 2017, we produced just 13 percent of global emissions here in the United States--just 13 percent. China and India together--33 percent. And they are rising over there. Without dramatic changes from India and China, global emissions are going to continue to climb. So even if all the Green New Deal's costly mandates went into effect, with the punishment to our country and our economy, there would still be no real effect on the Earth's temperature.

So, look, it is no surprise that the Democrats are trying to duck this big green bomb. Senate Democrats may even decide to vote present to avoid

voting for their own extreme proposal that a dozen of them have either signed on to or cosponsored, including just about every Democratic Senator who is running for President. They have all signed on. They are all cosponsoring it.

This green dream is unreachable, but there is a proven way to reduce our emissions, which is why I talk about what we are wanting to do in a positive way with nuclear energy, with carbon capture, things that have gathered the attention of the New York Times and were on the front page of USA TODAY on Monday.

So we are going to continue to work with the FUTURE Act and with the USE IT Act. The committee is going to continue to work in a bipartisan way because Republicans are committed to finding solutions through innovation, not taxation, not regulation--solutions that do not hurt our strong and healthy, growing economy.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, it is time to vote on the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.

For the past year, Andrew Wheeler has served as the Senate-confirmed Deputy Administrator of the EPA, and for the past 7 months, he has served as the Acting Administrator. He has done an admirable job in charge of the EPA.

Under his leadership, the EPA has put forward commonsense proposals to roll back punishing regulations and still protect America's air and water. He is committed to protecting both human health and the environment.

Andrew Wheeler's qualifications are without question. He has spent decades working in environmental policy at the EPA itself, here on Capitol Hill, and as a consultant to environmental and energy clients.

President Trump picked the right person to lead the Environmental Protection Agency when he nominated Andrew Wheeler. It is time for the Senate to confirm him to this important post.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, the Senate is today considering the nomination of Andrew Wheeler to serve as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is the job of the EPA to protect both the environment and human health. This critically important Agency needs Senate-confirmed leadership in place.

President Trump picked the right person to lead this Agency when he nominated Andrew Wheeler. Since April of last year, he has served as the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and since July of last year, he has served as the Acting Administrator of the Agency. I believe Andrew Wheeler has done an outstanding job in leading the EPA over the past 7 months.

During the last administration, the EPA issued punishing regulations that would hurt the economy and raise costs on families. Under Acting Administrator Wheeler's leadership, the EPA has taken a different approach. The Agency is now putting forward proposals that both protect our environment and allow the country's economy to flourish.

Acting Administrator Wheeler has led efforts to issue commonsense regulatory proposals. These include the affordable clean energy rule and revising the definition of the waters of the United States. Both of these proposals show Mr. Wheeler is serious about clean air and clean water while they also show he understands there is an important role for States and local communities to play. It can't be a top-down, Washington-knows-best approach.

Acting Administrator Wheeler has played a critical role in implementing updates to the Toxic Substances Control Act and has taken steps to limit people's exposure to dangerous and toxic chemicals. These updates are the result of major bipartisan legislation that came out of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in 2016.

Andrew Wheeler is working to limit lead exposure as well. Last December, he helped to unveil the Trump administration's multiagency effort to reduce the number of children exposed to lead in drinking water, in consumer products, and in paint. During his tenure, the EPA has also worked to provide greater regulatory certainty to States, to Tribes, to communities, and to the industries it regulates.

Mr. Wheeler is well qualified for the position of EPA Administrator. He has spent decades--actually, over 25 years--working in environmental policy. He has served as a career employee at the EPA as an environmental protection specialist. This experience makes him uniquely qualified to serve as the head of the Agency.

After that time, he spent over a decade here on Capitol Hill. When he left the EPA, he came here to work on the Environment and Public Works Committee. He served as the staff director of the Senate Environment and Public Works' Clean Air and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee for 6 years. Then he spent another 6 years working as the Republican staff director and chief counsel for the full committee under Chairman Jim Inhofe. After his time on the Hill, he also worked as a consultant for a variety of energy and environmental clients. He is very well qualified, and that is a big reason his nomination has received broad support.

There are 63 agricultural and forestry groups that wrote a letter in support of Mr. Wheeler's nomination to be the Administrator: ``It is hard to imagine a more qualified individual for the role of EPA administrator, and we respectfully request that the committee move to confirm his nomination so that he may be considered by the full Senate,'' they say, ``at the earliest date possible.''

Mr. Wheeler has received praise from the United Mine Workers of America.

Cecil Roberts, the union's international president, said the following about Mr. Wheeler: ``[H]e will be a reasonable voice within the agency, and will recognize the impact on both the workers and mining communities that are directly affected as EPA develops future emissions regulations.''

His experience and commitment to sound environmental policies has received recognition from the Democrats as well.

Senator Carper, who is with me on the floor and was the ranking member of our committee at one point, said of Mr. Wheeler when he was nominated for the Deputy Administrator's role: ``I think having worked in the agency, he actually cares about the environment; the air we breathe; the water we drink; the planet on which we live.'' I agree.

It is time to end the needless delays by the Senate Democrats. Andrew Wheeler's nomination to serve as the Deputy Administrator was delayed for months and had to be reported out of the EPW Committee twice before he was confirmed. Now the Senate Democrats are calling to delay the process again. These delays only slow down the Agency from meeting its objectives of helping communities and protecting the environment.

The EPA needs a Senate-confirmed Administrator in office. The EPA Administrator plays a central role in developing and implementing programs that are focused on meeting the EPA's mission of protecting human health and the environment. Andrew Wheeler is well qualified to lead this Agency and to serve in the President's Cabinet. He is the right person to be the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I strongly encourage every Senator to support the nomination.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today, Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon will sign a joint resolution of the Wyoming Legislature recognizing December 10, 2019, as Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day.

On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory passed the first law in U.S. history granting women the right to vote and hold public office. This right became so important to the people of Wyoming that, when the State sought statehood, it refused to enter the Union if this right was not protected.

In 2015, I came to the floor to speak in honor of the 125th anniversary of Wyoming statehood. I shared with the Senate the challenge Wyoming faced from Congress in its quest to become a member of the Union. I believe it is timely to share that story again.

The debate in Congress was contentious, with the arguments centering on one of our most proud accomplishments: a decision made long before Wyoming became a State. On December 10, 1869, the Wyoming Territory was the first in the United States to grant women the right to vote.

Efforts to attain statehood finally came to fruition 20 years later. It was incumbent on our delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives, Joseph M. Carey, to convince his colleagues to support the statehood bill.

On March 26, 1890, the day of the statehood bill debate, Joseph Carey spoke passionately about Wyoming. His words still hold true today. He said that Wyoming was rich in agricultural possibilities. He explained Wyoming was one of nature's great storehouses of minerals. Joseph Carey also talked about grazing development, educational leadership, widespread railway construction, the model Constitution, and the unique opportunities for women.

Yet opponents to our statehood did not support women having the right to vote. On the same day as Joseph Carey's impassioned speech, Representative William Oates of Alabama argued against our admittance to the Union. He said, ``Mr. Speaker, I do not hesitate to say that in my judgment the franchise has been too liberally extended. Should we ever reach universal suffrage this Government will become practically a pure democracy and then the days of its existence are numbered.''

The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed Wyoming's statehood bill with a vote of 139 to 127. The U.S. Senate passed the bill on June 27, 1890. Wyoming officially became the 44th State on July 10, 1890, and became the first state to allow women the right to vote and hold public office.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record Enrolled Joint Resolution No. 1 of the Sixty-Fifth Legislature of the State of Wyoming recognizing December 10, 2019, as Wyoming Women's Suffrage Day.

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

Madam President, Republicans have kept our commitment the past 2 years to get Americans back to work. We provided much needed tax relief and regulatory relief for people all across the country. We reined in Washington, we unleashed job creators, and now we are producing more jobs than can be filled. So America is back in business. The economy is booming. Economic growth has accelerated.

In just 2 years, we have created 5 million jobs in this country--3 million jobs since we passed tax relief last year--and 600,000 of these new jobs are in manufacturing. Last month alone, we added a phenomenal 300,000 new jobs.

Here is more welcomed news. Americans are seeing bigger paychecks. Wages are up 3 percent--the highest jump in over a decade. Our unemployment rate is at a 50-year low. Clearly, our country is headed in the right direction. Pro-growth Republican policies have improved Americans' lives.

Democrats, on the other hand, want to take us in the opposite direction. Just last week, Democrats released their Green New Deal. It is a Big Government takeover of the economy, masked as an environmental policy. The proposal isn't green, and it is not new. It is not a green deal. It is a raw deal. If implemented, this plan would put millions of people out of work and it would cost our Nation tens of trillions of dollars.

The plan, to me, is really less about addressing climate change and more about putting government in control of every facet of our lives. Even if it were affordable--and it is not--the proposal is so far outside America's mainstream that it is scary. The proposal reads like an absurd socialist manifesto. They call for a ``national mobilization'' to ``transform every sector of our economy and society'' and to do it by the year 2030. In just 10 years, Washington would create a command-and-control economy to eliminate choice in how we live. Washington would tell us how to travel, what our houses should look like, and what food is on our grocery store shelves.

That is just a starting point. The plan includes a laundry list of government giveaways: guaranteed housing, college, food, healthcare, and a job. Even people who refuse to work, according to the one press, would be guaranteed a paycheck.

In its lunacy, the Green New Deal embodies Democrats' hard-left turn. Under the plan, the Nation's energy system would undergo a Big Government takeover. Through heavy-handed mandates, we would all be forced to meet all our power needs from costly zero-carbon and renewable sources--all of it. The Green New Deal eliminates energy sources that currently provide power to roughly three out of every five homes in America and to businesses as well. It mandates the use of expensive energy sources that realistically can't meet our country's needs.

It would mean the end of the internal combustion engine in cars, in boats, and in planes. The plan would force every driver in America to purchase an electric vehicle or rely on public transportation.

It would also mean the end of both airplanes and ships. American-made goods could no longer be exported around the world. There would be no way to send them. Americans living on islands, from Puerto Rico to Hawaii, would be stranded, and it would put a stop to Americans taking vacations abroad.

An extensive and expensive national high-speed rail system would have to replace air travel. That is what they are calling for--an expensive and extensive national high-speed rail system to replace air travel.

The State of California is currently attempting to build just one of these rail lines at a cost of $89 million for every planned mile of track--so $89 million for every planned mile of track.

So what happened today? What happened just a few hours ago in California? California Governor Gavin Newsom said he is ending the State's effort to build a high-speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles. That is what the Green New Deal says they are going to do. Yet the Governor today says they are going to discontinue the plans.

Newsom said in his state of the State address today that it ``would cost too much and take too long.'' Well, that looks like the entire Democrats' Green New Deal. He says it ``would cost too much and take too long'' to build the line long championed by his predecessor, Jerry Brown. The latest estimates pin the cost at $77 billion and completion in 2033.

That is where we are today.

There is another victim of the Green New Deal. It is ice cream. Livestock would be banned. Say goodbye to dairy, beef, and family farms and ranches. American favorites like cheeseburgers and milkshakes would become a thing of the past. Millions of American workers will lose their jobs. Living this ``green dream'' is actually a nightmare.

Just the energy portion of this plan alone would cost at least $5.7 trillion, and it is feasibly impossible. The government handouts, healthcare, and other giveaways will cost tens of trillions more. This Green Deal will bankrupt the country.

The guaranteed-job program alone would cost an estimated hundreds of billions of dollars each and every year. Taxes will have to go through the roof, as will energy prices. This is just the tip of the iceberg. This green scheme would undermine our entire way of life.

The plan would impose a burdensome mandate on homeowners. Every building nationwide will have to be overhauled--every one. Home heating and electric costs will surge. One estimate said that the average energy bill would rise by as much as $3,800 per year per home.

In reality, the only thing green about the Green New Deal is the cash it will cost American families. This is simply a Washington power play posing as a clean energy plan.

These are some of the same socialist goals we have seen from the far left that they have been pushing for decades. It has failed everywhere it has been tried, from Venezuela to the former Soviet Union. The path to cleaner energy lies in supporting private innovation, not government regulation.

American energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have steadily fallen in recent years. The United States is currently on pace to reduce them by 17 percent below 2005 levels, and we are going to do it by the year 2025. So we have been doing it in the United States. We have been lowering emissions. We are leading the world in lowering our carbon emissions over the past decade. A Washington takeover of the energy sector is going to interfere with that progress.

Congress should support affordable baseline energy solutions that will actually reduce emissions and grow our economy. Cutting-edge technologies--including nuclear power, carbon capture, and carbon utilization--hold enormous promise. Nuclear power currently provides about 60 percent of America's emission-free energy. Some supporters of the Green New Deal have even talked about banning nuclear power.

Republicans support a commonsense approach to addressing climate change. We are interested in solutions, not socialism. We need to make American energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, and we can do it without raising costs on the American public.

The Democrats' plan is a hard left turn that will drive our economy off a cliff. It is the first big step on that dark path to socialism. Simply put, the green deal is a raw deal for the American public.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, section 7003 of the legislation before us today, as modified by the Rubio amendment No. 182, addresses units in the Coastal Barrier Resources System, which Congress established through bipartisan legislation in 1982. Congress most recently updated maps as recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the end of last year through the enactment of Public Law 115-358.

I yield to my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Delaware, ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Mr. President, I have 3 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 Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Indo-Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program''.

Committee on Armed Services

The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``United States Indo-Pacific Command and United States Forces Korea in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program''.

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

The Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, February 12, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Managing Pain During the Opioid Crisis.''