John Barrasso

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask unanimous consent that all time expires.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BARRASSO

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I object.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

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

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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. BARRASSO

Mr. BARRASSO. 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.

Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.