March 26, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 52 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages S1964-S1972]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

 RECOGNIZING THE DUTY OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CREATE A GREEN NEW 
                        DEAL--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to legislative session to resume consideration of the motion to 
proceed to S.J. Res. 8, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       Motion to proceed to Calendar No. 27, S.J. Res. 8, a joint 
     resolution recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to 
     create a Green New Deal.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, last month our colleague, the Senator 
from New York, the Democratic leader, said:

       So when the Republican leader says he wants to bring the 
     Green New Deal resolution up for a vote, I say: Go for it. 
     Bring it on.

  Well, here we are. Senators will soon have a chance to vote on the 
Green New Deal, and we have already seen a lot of confusion and more 
than a little waffling from our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
some apparently confused on exactly what they should do on a resolution 
they themselves proposed.
  When it was announced, the senior Senator from Massachusetts quickly 
pledged her support, as did the junior Senator from New Jersey. But I 
find it pretty curious that some of our colleagues who were among the 
first to join these Senators and voice their support for this proposal 
are now among those saying they will simply vote present--present.
  Even more interesting is one of the bill's authors, the junior 
Senator from Massachusetts, who called this vote ``sabotage.''
  Ordinarily, when proposing a piece of legislation around here, one is 
tickled pink when the majority leader schedules it for a vote, but 
somehow some of our colleagues will vote present--neither yea nor nay--
and others claim it is sabotage. As the vote approaches, we have seen 
many of our Democratic friends running for the hills, trying to provide 
space between them and this issue.
  The Green New Deal is chock full of utopian ideas but completely 
devoid of concrete plans to implement any of its overreaching policies. 
Even the name is a little disorienting because the Green New Deal is 
not just a new radical environmental policy; it is that, but it is 
more. It encompasses much more than that with Medicare for All, free 
college, and guaranteed jobs. I might add, parenthetically, you might 
as well throw in free beer and pizza too.
  What has been billed as an economy invigorator and job innovator in 
order to lift up the middle class is really anything but. The bottom 
line of this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. It is about 
a message; it is not about finding solutions to real problems.
  Maybe it is useful to take a step back to look at what we have 
already done in this Congress to help the middle class and to generate 
job growth. Over the last 2 years, we have worked to roll back 
burdensome regulations left over from the previous administration and 
make much needed reforms to our outdated Tax Code--the first time in 30 
years.
  My constituents in Texas have taken notice, and I have heard from 
many of them who have seen an increase in their take-home pay, thanks 
to the tax reform bill, for example. Small businesses in Texas have 
been able to help give their employees more benefits. For example, 
Village Foods and Pharmacy in Bryan, TX, said that because of the tax 
reform bill, they were able to provide employee bonuses and implement a 
401(k) retirement program, something they were previously unable to do. 
In San Antonio, my hometown, Hinee Gourmet Coffee said they used their 
tax cut savings to give their employees raises, as well as to increase 
employee benefits and upgrade their equipment.
  The unemployment rate in Texas remains at 3.8 percent, near its 
historic 43-year low and on par with the national average. The Lone 
Star State has added 268,000-plus jobs since February 2018. If you go 
to Midland, TX, and the Permian Basin, the unemployment rate is 2.1 
percent. Labor is tight, and employers are looking for workers because 
the economy is booming, and they need good people to fill these 
unfilled jobs.
  I think my State is proof positive that when the government gets out 
of the way, the economy can flourish. That is why we have seen so many 
people flooding into Texas to take advantage of the low taxes and 
abundant job opportunities. It is also why I find it so ironic that a 
few weeks ago one of the Green New Deal creators, the Congresswoman 
from New York, chose South by Southwest in Austin to peddle her 
socialist agenda, because if implemented, the Green New Deal would wipe 
out most of this prosperity. It would cut job growth; it would 
dramatically increase taxes and cripple our red-hot economy.
  One group has estimated that in order to achieve just one portion of 
this radical agenda--a net-zero emissions transportation system--the 
annual cost to families would be about $2,000. That is just for part of 
the Green New Deal.
  Add in another Green New Deal proposal, and it gets more expensive--
to

[[Page S1965]]

the tune of $26,000. No, I am not talking about somebody's annual 
paycheck. I am talking about the estimated cost for families to 
implement their universal healthcare program that would wipe out all 
employer-provided coverage and bankrupt Medicare. Families in Texas and 
across the country would be on the hook for more than $65,000 a year in 
order to finance the Green New Deal's expensive and extravagant 
promises.

  Unfortunately, the list of expenses doesn't stop there. The Green New 
Deal calls for a move to 100-percent clean and renewable energy in just 
10 years. Right now, Texas generates about 19 percent of our energy 
from renewables. We like renewables in Texas, but there needs to be a 
baseload that provides energy when the sun doesn't shine and the wind 
doesn't blow. The Green New Deal has no plan for how it expects States 
to actually scale up their number from the 19 percent Texas currently 
generates from renewables to this 100 percent--no plan at all.
  Without a plan, Texans can forget about electricity that is 
affordable and reliable; instead, they need to ready themselves for 
electric bills that could jump to as high as $3,800 a year.
  Instead of focusing on a grab bag of government mandates and 
overreaching regulations that we know would bankrupt our country, we 
need to follow existing models that point a way toward success. We know 
what works, and, if you will forgive me, I would suggest the Texas 
model is a good one. Our model values collaboration and partnership 
with the private sector in order to create affordable and cutting-edge 
solutions. We are all about innovation and experimentation. That is how 
we come up with better, smarter, more efficient, and more effective 
ideas to deal with problems. It is a model based on innovation that has 
been the backbone of our successful economy. The last thing we need is 
another Federal Government wet blanket that puts a damper on all of the 
great innovation and activity that has caused our economy to boom.
  Texas is really the best example of this with companies like NET 
Power and NRG Energy, which are leading the way in innovation. NET 
Power, which has a plant in La Porte, outside of Houston, has developed 
a first-of-its-kind power system that generates affordable electricity 
from natural gas with zero emissions--zero emissions.
  Our State is also proof positive that one can promote innovation 
while harnessing the traditional power of oil and gas development. In 
other words, we can be pro-energy, pro-innovation, pro-growth, and pro-
environment. But if we implemented the Green New Deal, we wouldn't be 
talking only about the added costs and expenses to families; hundreds 
of thousands of people would lose their jobs and our export economy, 
which helps fuel our booming economy, would sharply decline. Our energy 
independence would evaporate, but our need for and reliance on natural 
gas, coal, and oil would remain. It would focus our efforts back on 
being more dependent on foreign energy sources rather than generating 
them domestically. I am sure Russia, for example, would be happy about 
that.
  Some have called the Green New Deal the road map for solving climate 
change, but to be a road map, you have to have clear points on how to 
get from point A to point B. You actually need to be clear-eyed about 
the problem you are trying to solve, and you need details in terms of 
how you actually hope to get to where you want to go. But this proposal 
is a pie-in-the-sky, unattainable end destination with no details of 
how to arrive there.
  So as the Senate prepares to vote on the Green New Deal, I ask that 
we keep in mind that our constituents didn't send us here to Washington 
to vote present. That is a copout. Voting present? Give me a break. 
People ought to vote their conviction. They ought to vote yes or no. To 
hide behind some copout vote like present is just to take the easy way 
out, and it is sad that appears to be the road many of our friends 
across the aisle are about to take, rather than doing the job they have 
been sent here to do and working with us to come up with actual, 
tangible solutions that can become law. I know that if we just tried a 
little bit harder and avoided these sorts of ideological talking 
points, we could actually solve more of these problems and ours could 
remain a strong economy. We could create jobs. We can maintain our 
energy self-sufficiency here in America, and we can deal with 
environmental emissions concerns. We can find solutions to those 
problems, but one big power grab by the Federal Government that ruins 
the economy, bankrupts us, and, frankly, doesn't really make things 
better is a bad deal for Texans, and I believe a bad deal for 
Americans.
  Unsurprisingly, I intend to vote no, and I hope my colleagues will 
join me in doing the same.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Blackburn). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Ms. CORTEZ MASTO. Madam President, I stand today with my colleagues 
on the Democratic side of the aisle to talk about the real impacts of 
climate change.
  Climate change is real. It is happening in our communities, and it is 
harming our country. It is impacting our economy, and it is threatening 
the future of our kids.
  You can see it clearly in my home State of Nevada. The last 4 years 
have been the hottest ever on record, and we are on track to break that 
record again in 2019. In Nevada, we are seeing longer, more dangerous 
heat waves, prolonged droughts, and more severe wildfire seasons. Just 
this past year, more than 660,000 acres of private, Bureau of Land 
Management, and U.S. Forest Service land burned in 138 fires starting 
in June of 2018. The biggest fire in our State's history and also one 
of the biggest in our country's history happened just this past year. 
The Martin Fire burned more than 439,000 acres. That is an area about 
five times the size of Las Vegas.
  I have heard from Nevada ranchers who are facing the tough choice to 
abandon the land their families have worked for generations due to the 
cost of recovery and the threat of even worse fire seasons. I have met 
with parents in Las Vegas and Reno who are worried about the impact 
that worsening air quality, because of climate change and these 
wildfires, will have on the health of their children.
  It is not happening just in Nevada; throughout our country, Americans 
are being displaced and communities are being ravaged by devastating 
hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, and floods that are causing millions 
of dollars in damage to homes, businesses, and local economies. 
Worldwide, carbon emissions levels reached a record high last year, 
increasing 3.1 percent in the United States alone, despite evidence 
that high emissions are driving changes in our climate and fueling 
extreme weather patterns. Yet this administration and the Republican 
leader have done nothing to act despite overwhelming support from 
Americans who want us to protect our planet and our communities.
  In my home State, Nevadans know the stakes. In 2016, Colorado College 
polled voters in six Western States about their views on climate 
change. At the time, 58 percent of Nevadans expressed concerns that 
climate change was a serious problem. In January, Nevadans were polled 
again. This time, almost 75 percent of Nevadans expressed serious 
concerns about climate change. That is a 16-percent jump in 3 years and 
comes months after 60 percent of Nevadans supported a ballot initiative 
to expand Nevada's renewable energy portfolio to 50 percent by 2030.
  Across the country, Americans are worried about the impacts of 
pollution and carbon emissions on our climate, health, and our economy. 
They have seen the harm it has caused just over the last decade, and 
they are afraid it is getting worse.
  You don't have to look far to see that our climate is changing. It is 
already happening in our own backyards. We have the evidence. There is 
scientific consensus. This isn't a fringe theory or a hypothesis asking 
to be debunked; it is a serious crisis that must be met with serious 
action. It is clear to younger generations of Americans who

[[Page S1966]]

actually walked out of schools this month to demand climate action from 
their representatives in Washington.
  Despite overwhelming evidence that climate change is currently 
threatening our country, Leader McConnell and this administration are 
sitting on their hands. This administration has repeatedly tried to 
scrub climate change information from Federal Agency websites, 
supported Agency officials with deep ties to fossil fuel industries, 
and pulled the United States out of a critical international agreement 
that we need to collectively work together to avert climate disaster.
  In the Senate, instead of working to find bipartisan solutions to one 
of our country's greatest threats, Leader McConnell is setting up a 
vote designed to be nothing more than a political stunt. My Democratic 
colleagues and I take the threat of climate change seriously. We won't 
support the Republican leader's newest political game to address 
climate change. We call it a sham vote. This isn't a vote about 
legislation; it is a cynical attempt to distract from the challenge 
confronting our country.
  The fact is, Democrats all agree that we need to take urgent action 
to protect our environment and avert climate catastrophe. Senate 
Democrats have put forth many new ideas on how to grow our economy and 
support American prosperity, while addressing our world's growing 
climate crisis. We would be happy to work with our colleagues to debate 
them on the floor.
  From my seat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I 
am continuing to fight for legislation to tackle climate change by 
supporting renewable energy production, protecting workers, and 
creating good-paying, green jobs in Nevada and across the country.
  I call on Leader McConnell and my Republican colleagues: If you are 
serious about addressing climate change, then join us. Senate Democrats 
will continue to fight for commonsense policies that reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuels and combat climate change, and we will 
continue to call on our colleagues across the aisle to work with us to 
tackle this challenge in both the House and Senate.
  Democrats are working every day to craft smart and effective policies 
that will help safeguard our planet and help grow our economy. By 
forcing a vote now, Senator McConnell is denying us all the chance to 
come together to craft bipartisan, comprehensive climate change 
legislation through the legislative process. The American people want 
action now.
  I won't stand for Republican leaders using this vote in a cynical 
attempt to divide Democrats and stall progress. I intend to keep my 
promise to fight on this issue and to protect the most vulnerable and 
marginalized, who often bear the brunt of the effects of unchecked 
climate change.
  The American people continue to speak out for action on climate 
change, and Senate Democrats will keep fighting because our planet and 
our future depend on it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, the Democrats on this side believe that 
climate change is a real and urgent problem. The Republican leader 
seems to believe it is not a problem at all.
  The majority leader has scheduled votes today on a version of the 
Green New Deal. I was proud to be a cosponsor of that.
  I want to make sure that nobody believes what is happening today on 
this floor is part of a serious debate. The fact is, it is a sham 
debate about the growing and urgent problem of climate change.
  The Green New Deal is all about offering a mission statement--a 
statement of direction on the urgency of climate change. It is about 
recognizing the staggering threat and encouraging everybody to come 
forward to bring up good ways to tackle it. As the ranking Democrat on 
the Finance Committee, I will outline just one of them this afternoon. 
It is not a bill; it is a resolution. That is why it is a head-
scratcher to hear all these far-fetched attacks on the Green New Deal 
in the media and here on this floor.
  Let's be clear about what this resolution, the Green New Deal, says. 
Nobody is out there banning cheeseburgers. If you want to eat an ice 
cream sandwich and wash it down with a milkshake, nobody is going to be 
taking that milkshake out of your hands, either. I don't know what this 
anti-food legislation is that I keep hearing opponents talk about, but 
it certainly isn't the Green New Deal. I will tell you that my son, 
William Peter Wyden, age 11, is specifically going to make sure that 
his papa doesn't sign on to something like that. There is no building 
trains to Hawaii. Nobody is banning airplanes, and nobody is trying to 
take people's cars. The Green New Deal is about bringing good ideas to 
bear in the fight against climate change. That is what the American 
people are demanding action on.
  I will tell you that this issue comes up at every townhall meeting I 
hold. Just over the last week, I was in rural counties where Donald 
Trump won by an enormous percentage, and people understood what climate 
change was all about because of the wildfires we had.
  These are not your grandfather's wildfires; these are infernos. We 
have had them leap the Columbia River. They are more powerful. They are 
more dangerous. Fire season isn't for just a couple of months in the 
summer; it is almost year-round. In my home State, we have had to get 
used to what amounts to the idea of clean air refugees when fires burn 
near populated areas. This is where folks--particularly folks who are 
of modest income--have literally nowhere to go and can't go outside. 
Anybody who hasn't been to the Columbia River Gorge should know that 
when a fire leaps the Columbia River, you are talking about something 
very different. Rivers have historically blocked the spread of 
wildfires but not anymore. Last year, dozens of people were killed and 
more than 10,000 structures destroyed by the Camp Fire, the most 
destructive fire in California history. These infernos are happening 
across the West--Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, and elsewhere.
  Climate change isn't just about fires; it drives extreme temperatures 
in both directions. Extreme cold is a danger to millions of people 
during the winter. Warmer temperatures in spring and summer bring more 
rain and more floods to so much of the country. Elsewhere, especially 
in the West, the threat of drought looms continuously. The hurricanes 
battering the east coast and the Gulf of Mexico are intensifying. It 
seems as if every week, another group of prominent scientists warns 
about mass-extinction events, ecological failures, and runaway 
temperature increases.
  There are great economic impacts as a result of all this. When 
Americans face a future of extreme temperatures, bigger storms, and 
hotter fires, it will mean that it will cost more money to rebuild the 
city that has been flooded by a hurricane or burned in an inferno. We 
are going to see increases in insurance premiums when weather-related 
damage becomes more common. If you really want to know how serious this 
problem is, look at these private insurance premiums. The market is 
telling us how serious this problem is. It requires more energy to heat 
and cool homes and workplaces in extreme temperatures.

  I want to make one last point because I think there is a little bit 
of confusion about the direction the Senate ought to go.
  I had mentioned that the Green New Deal is really a mission 
statement, a resolution, a sense of urgency that we ought to be all 
about. I want to contrast that with the original new deal, which was 
actual legislation, something like 15 bills--certainly, more than a 
dozen major ones. My sense is that this is what Congress is going to 
have to do in the years ahead with respect to climate. Let me give an 
example.
  We have talked about the mission of the resolution, where we would 
like to go. Here is an example of what we ought to work together on 
with respect to legislation. As the senior Democrat on the Senate 
Finance Committee, I pointed out that there were more than 40 separate 
tax breaks for energy on the Federal tax books--40 separate tax breaks 
for energy. In fact, the Tax Code, as it relates to energy, is 
essentially anchored in dirty energy tax relics of yesteryear.
  Given the fact that taxpayers now write out big annual checks to the 
dirtiest energy companies, what I have

[[Page S1967]]

proposed is that we replace that. You can't stand up to climate change 
as long as you are ladling out all of those tax subsidies to dirty 
energy. What I have proposed is to take those 40-plus energy tax breaks 
and just basically throw them in the trash can--in effect, throw them 
into the trash can that is right next to our desks. For those 40 energy 
tax breaks that are disproportionately for dirty energy, we would then 
substitute three new ones--one for clean energy, one for clean 
transportation fuel, and one for energy efficiency.
  I would like to think that the Democrats and Republicans who are 
playing off this idea are going to be able to say: Hey, we can find 
common ground on this because for companies all across the country, 
when they buy new pieces of equipment for their companies, they will 
invariably make sure they will be cleaner and more energy efficient 
than what will have been on their factory floors. So they would qualify 
for two out of the three new energy incentives I am talking about. That 
is something we could have a real debate about. That is not a sham 
debate. That is a real debate.
  Yesterday, Senator Alexander, our Republican colleague from the 
Presiding Officer's State, said he believed climate change was real. He 
said he believed it was caused by man, and he called for a new 
Manhattan Project for Clean Energy. I heard it. It sounded like he had 
plenty of ideas that could make for a real debate between Democrats and 
Republicans. Senator Alexander sits right over there, not far from our 
colleague from Iowa, Senator Ernst. He was talking about real ideas 
after acknowledging that climate change was a problem and that man 
contributed to it.
  I hope some of my colleagues on the other side will follow Senator 
Alexander's lead. This is a debate the Senate ought to have. It ought 
to have a debate about what Senator Alexander was talking about. We 
ought to have a debate about throwing the 40 separate tax breaks for 
energy into the garbage and substituting for them three new ones that 
reflect our most current challenges. That is the way the Senate is 
supposed to function: You recognize a problem; you come forward with 
ideas in a serious debate; and you try to build common ground.
  I see my colleague from Iowa is here. I am interested in working with 
her, and we have worked together on other issues. I am interested in 
working with all of my colleagues as I have with respect to this 
question of making the Tax Code neutral regarding energy sources. We 
are not doing that today. What we are doing is playing a political 
game.
  I say to my colleagues that nobody ought to take part in this 
political game. You don't play political games when the consequences 
for the American people are so serious. Instead, you have a serious 
debate about what to do about the serious problem. That is not what is 
going on today.
  I close by saying that years into the future, our children and our 
grandchildren are going to deal with the consequences of inaction, and 
they are going to look at something like this so-called debate--because 
I call it a sham debate--and they are going to be angry. The American 
people deserve a lot better than this kind of fake debate that is being 
held on the Senate floor right now.
  I want to make it clear: As the senior Democrat on the Senate Finance 
Committee, I am very interested in working with my colleagues on real 
and bipartisan approaches to deal with this staggering challenge. That 
is not what we are having today, and our country is going to regret it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.


                            Flooding in Iowa

  Ms. ERNST. Madam President, I rise to speak about the flooding that 
has devastated wide swaths of the Midwest in recent weeks.
  A harsh winter, combined with unseasonably warm weather and heavy 
rains, created conditions that overwhelmed much of our flood mitigation 
infrastructure up and down the Missouri River and its tributaries. In 
Iowa alone, the flooding has caused an estimated $1.6 billion in 
damages. Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed, and nearly 
250 miles of levees will need to be repaired or rebuilt. Thousands of 
acres of farmland have been impacted, with there being losses to the ag 
sector in excess of $200 million. Fremont County, which is our furthest 
southwest county in the State of Iowa, has lost $7 million worth of 
grain.
  I spent much of last week on the ground in Iowa, visiting hard-hit 
areas of the State and meeting with local, State, and Federal 
officials. In my years as a member of the Iowa National Guard, I was on 
the frontlines of several of our major flood events, including the 2008 
Cedar Rapids flood and the 2011 Missouri River flood. I can tell you 
that what I witnessed in this flood event was the worst flooding and 
destruction that I have ever witnessed. The devastation is simply 
incomprehensible, with the most severe damage being concentrated in 
Iowa's western most counties.
  I have spent most of my life in southwest Iowa. So this hits 
particularly close to home for me. When I toured the affected 
communities last week and this past Sunday, the folks I met with were 
not just Iowans and not just constituents. Many of them were friends 
whom I have known for a very long time. In this part of the State, down 
there in southwest Iowa, I am just as likely to be called ``Joni'' as I 
am ``Senator Ernst.'' It was heartbreaking to see what these folks have 
gone through. Again, they are not just constituents. These people are 
family and friends to me.
  It will take a lot of hard work and determination to get our 
communities back up on their feet. But do you know what, folks? Iowans 
are a resilient people, and I know they are up to the task. Since the 
first signs of trouble over a week ago, our State and local emergency 
response teams have been working together seamlessly, around the clock, 
to keep our Iowans safe.
  I credit Governor Reynolds and her office for quickly gathering 
damage assessments from all around the State in order to make a strong 
case to the President that a Federal disaster declaration was 
warranted. I also thank President Trump for recognizing the gravity of 
the situation on the ground in Iowa and for swiftly approving our 
request. Nearly 60 of Iowa's counties will now have access to much 
needed Federal assistance.
  In the near term, our focus is on recovery efforts, and I will do 
everything in my power to make sure Iowans have every bit of the help 
they need. We need to get our farms and small businesses back up and 
running as soon as possible so Iowans can do what they do best, and 
that is to work hard and take care of their families.
  As we move forward, I intend to review the Army Corps of Engineers' 
policies and closely examine how they were applied throughout this 
flood event. It is important that we study and learn from events like 
this so that we can try to prevent these types of devastating events 
from happening again in our future.
  Once again, I want to say what a heartbreaking and devastating event 
this has been for so many of our Iowa counties, our Iowa families, and 
our Iowa businesses. My thoughts and prayers are with each one of them 
as we move through this event.
  God bless you all.
  Of course, God bless our great State of Iowa and our great United 
States.
  We are there for you. We are there with you.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.


                             Climate Change

  Ms. WARREN. Madam President, I rise to discuss climate change, which 
is a great crisis currently facing our country and our planet.
  Let me start with a statement that is sometimes controversial in this 
Chamber: I believe in science.
  Here are three simple scientific facts: Climate change is real; it is 
caused by humans; and we are running out of time to fix our troubles.
  Here are three more scientific facts: The ocean and the air are 
getting hotter; storms are getting stronger; and flooding is getting 
worse.
  These facts are widely accepted throughout the world, but the 
President and Senate Republicans refuse to acknowledge these basic 
truths. Together, they routinely dismiss the impacts of climate change 
and deny the clear evidence that we must take action. They refuse even 
to say the words

[[Page S1968]]

``climate change.'' That is not leadership.
  Here is the thing about the facts: Refusing to believe them doesn't 
mean that they will go away. While a small handful--a tiny minority--of 
my colleagues across the aisle acknowledge that maybe climate change is 
real, they say that actually doing anything about it would just be too 
expensive, that the problem is too big to solve, and that we should 
just give up now--close our eyes and plug our ears again.
  Yet ignoring our problems has a much bigger price tag than the 
commonsense solutions we should already be pursuing. Our coasts are 
threatened by ever-stronger storms that can destroy our homes and 
devastate our largest cities. Our food supplies and forests are 
threatened by an endless barrage of droughts and wildfires. Even our 
naval bases are under attack, not by enemy fleets but by rising sea 
levels.
  To my Republican colleagues, I say that our biggest problems have to 
be our top priorities. Instead of protecting big fossil fuel companies 
that continue to guzzle the polluting fuels of the past, we need bold 
vision and forward-looking leadership. I support a green new deal that 
will aggressively tackle climate change, income inequality, and racial 
injustice. I thank my colleague and my friend and good partner, Senator 
Markey, for leading the fight on this issue.

  This is not the first time America has faced a so-called impossible 
challenge. Over half a century ago, President Kennedy said: ``No nation 
which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay 
behind in this race for space.'' He added that ``we mean to lead it.''
  President Kennedy challenged our Nation to lead the space race, and 
less than 7 years later Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. The 
impossible had become a reality, and America had led the way.
  It is time not only to challenge our country to tackle climate change 
head-on but also to lead the world in doing so. If we do not lead, then 
others will. China and other countries will win the race to define the 
green economy of the future, and we will lose those jobs forever.
  I don't accept the Republicans' argument that boldly addressing 
climate change and having the world's strongest economy are somehow 
incompatible. The exact opposite is true. Tackling our climate 
challenges will provide us with the opportunity to grow our economy and 
to protect public health. We can propel the United States to become the 
world leader in green innovation in the 21st century. We can address 
climate change and strengthen our economy by making major upgrades to 
our crumbling infrastructure, by building more resiliency along our 
coasts and rivers, by constructing more renewable energy, and by 
promoting policies that will spur new innovative research. These 
investments will protect our planet and will create good jobs with 
living wages, strong benefits, and safe working conditions.
  It is time for new ideas, not old ideology. It is time for innovative 
research, not tired rhetoric. It is time for groundbreaking science, 
not political stunts. It is time to roll up our sleeves and get to work 
on climate solutions because this crisis is upon us, and it is time to 
act.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  (The remarks of Senator Hirono pertaining to the introduction of S. 
868 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced 
Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Ms. HIRONO. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized 
for 6 minutes, please.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S.J. Res. 9

  Mr. CARPER. Thanks very much.
  Madam President, I rise again today to speak on an upcoming vote 
later on the majority leader's Green New Deal resolution.
  To my colleagues, I would just say that I think we have a serious 
choice to make. Either we can acknowledge the climate crisis that our 
planet faces and confront it head-on, or we can turn our backs to it 
and walk away. I think the clock is ticking, and we need to not walk 
away.
  While it is clear that a majority of Americans are calling on 
Congress to work together to address climate change, a number of our 
Republican colleagues--not all--have chosen to devote their time to 
deriding the Green New Deal instead of acknowledging the 800-pound 
gorilla in the room and crafting an action plan to do something about 
it while we still have time.
  Madam President, I will ask unanimous consent to offer a very simple 
resolution here in a few minutes. I think my friend from Wisconsin is 
probably here to reserve the right to object to that, which is his 
right.
  It is a pretty simple resolution. There are three parts to it. The 
first part of the resolution that I will be offering is that climate 
change is real. The second part of the resolution is that we as human 
beings have a lot to do with this problem. The last part of it is that 
we ought to do something about it. ``We'' includes the U.S. Congress.
  I have been asked a fair amount today: Well, what should we do about 
it? What should we do about it?
  If you look at the Green New Deal, the first part of the Green New 
Deal--especially the findings--gives a pretty good roadmap that I think 
we ought to seriously consider. I would just suggest that some items 
that have come up before the Environment and Public Works Committee in 
recent weeks and months--hearings that we held--could also help us 
figure out what the Congress might want to do about it.
  If you think climate change is real--and I do, and I think most of us 
do. It is becoming a more urgent matter, not a less urgent matter. What 
are some of the things we can do? I will mention a few.
  I think most people believe that carbon dioxide contributes to 
climate change, and that is true. With respect to climate change, there 
are other pollutants that are a lot worse than carbon. I want to 
mention a couple of them.
  One of them is black carbon. Where does black carbon come from? It 
comes from diesel engines--think of trucks, cars, locomotives, trains, 
and boats. If you have ever been at a traffic intersection and have 
seen those big diesel trucks that pull away from the traffic 
intersection and the huge plumes of black smoke that appear as they 
pull off, they include black carbon. Black carbon is more than 100 
times more dangerous than regular carbon dioxide in terms of its 
climate potential.
  We have American-made technology that can be used on diesel engines--
all diesel engines; there are millions of them--to reduce those 
emissions by 90 percent.
  We have a program called the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, which 
helps to fund and make monies available for States and local 
governments and private businesses to reduce their diesel emissions, 
especially black carbon. That is one.
  Two, think about our National Highway System in this country. Through 
most of our National Highway System, we don't provide charging stations 
for electric vehicles that have batteries. We don't have fueling 
stations for vehicles that are powered by hydrogen in conjunction with 
fuel cells that create movement for all kinds of vehicles.
  We need to put money into tax credits and grants for fueling stations 
for hydrogen and charging stations for electricity. We have an electric 
vehicle credit that has expired or is about to expire. It needs to be 
extended so that when people in this country are thinking about buying 
a vehicle, they will consider buying an electric vehicle, which doesn't 
put out any carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, or CO2.
  Another thing we could do is provide an investment tax credit, which 
Susan Collins and I have proposed doing for some time, where, for the 
first 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind that is deployed, the business 
gets a 30-percent investment tax credit. That is one thing we can do.
  The chairman of our Environment and Public Works Committee is here. 
He and I believe another good idea--and we are joined in this by 
Republicans and Democrats--is to develop technology, which we think is 
very promising, that would literally pull

[[Page S1969]]

carbon out of the air--not out of a smokestack but literally out of the 
air--and turn it into something more useful. That is something we can 
do.
  We had a hearing on legislation called the Nuclear Energy Innovation 
Capabilities Act, the NEIC. Part of what we want to do is, instead of 
running nuclear powerplants and ending up with a whole lot of spent 
fuel, we want to have technology where, when the heat is so high, those 
nuclear plants would use most of the spent fuel. Instead of having it 
stacked up around the country, we use it up and we create electricity 
from it.
  Two more things, and I am done. There are HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, 
which replaced CFCs. CFCs put a hole in the ozone. They are a coolant. 
They are a refrigerant. CFCs put a hole in the ozone. They were 
replaced by HFCs. HFCs didn't put a hole in the ozone. They are better 
for the ozone layer but not good for climate change. Now we have a 
follow-on product, a successor to HFCs. They are good for the ozone 
layer and good for climate change. We ought to make sure that we pass a 
treaty here in this body so we can actually use that technology.
  Finally, the last thing we can do is provide for our auto industry. 
It is something they are asking for.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time is expired.
  Mr. CARPER. I ask for 30 more seconds, please, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. CARPER. Thank you.
  The last thing we can do is--the auto industry has been saying, with 
respect to fuel efficiency standards, CAFE and so forth, that we ought 
to give them some near-term flexibility in terms of meeting more 
efficient fuel requirements, more efficient mileage requirements, and 
more stringent requirements going forward in the future. That is what 
they are asking for to provide certainty. It is a 50-State deal. 
California is at the table. We ought to do that.
  Those are just a couple of things we can do in Congress to actually 
address this, and we ought to do them. While we successfully help do 
good things for our planet, we are also going to create jobs and 
economic opportunity.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. CARPER. I think that is something the chairman of our committee 
and I might just agree on.
  Thank you, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Environment and Public Works Committee be discharged from further 
consideration of S.J. Res. 9 and that the resolution be read a third 
time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.
  This resolution says that climate change is real; that as people on 
this planet, we have something to do with it; and three, that Congress 
is part of the solution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. CARPER. That is my resolution.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from my Wyoming.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.


                           The Green New Deal

  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

[[Page S1970]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, would my friend from Wyoming, who 
mentioned my name, yield for a question or three?
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I know the vote is scheduled at 4 
o'clock. I am happy to answer a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. My friend from Wyoming said I said: ``Bring on the vote 
on the Green New Deal.'' I did, not because I think it is a smart thing 
to do--it is a stunt--but it will finally get us to talk about climate 
change, something the other side has not done.
  I would ask my colleague three questions. I was gratified to see 
Leader McConnell answer them for the first time in his press 
conference. Does the Senator from Wyoming believe climate change is 
real? Does he believe it is caused by human activity? And does he 
believe Congress ought to do something about it? Those are my three 
questions. I hope I can get a direct answer, since my name was invoked.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.


                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 97

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, I thank my colleague from 
Wyoming. Now he knows why I said: ``Bring it on.'' We are finally 
getting even people like the Senator from Wyoming to admit that climate 
change is real, that it is caused by human activity, and that we should 
do something about it.
  If we could have an open debate on climate change, that would be 
great. That is not what is happening today. The Senator from Wyoming 
talked about the contradiction of the Senator outside. How about the 
contradictions of the Republican Party and the Senators here putting a 
bill on the floor that they are going to vote no on.
  Let's put the bill that the Senator from Wyoming asked for and let 
there be an open amendment process and let's see where people fall. All 
we are asking for is not a sham vote where people who put the bill on 
the floor are voting no because they don't want to have a debate, but 
rather a real discussion, a real debate, and real amendments.
  I would say this. Earlier today, even better than having the Senator 
from Wyoming finally admit that climate change is real and caused by 
human activity, the Republican leader did, when asked by the press at 
his gathering.
  The whole plan of the Republican leader here is backfiring.
  We want a discussion on climate. We haven't had one major bill on the 
real issues of climate come to the floor led by the leader where we can 
have open debate--not one. So now we are finally beginning to debate. 
That is great. We are not going to stand for sham bills that the other 
side is all voting no on. They know what a trick and joke and sham that 
is. So do all the American people. We are finally talking about the 
issue, and that is great. Climate change is not a joke. It is not a 
hoax. It is a crisis. That is why we are doing these things.
  So right now, here is something else we could do. Let's see where our 
Republican colleagues are if they want to have a real debate. I am 
calling for the creation of a Senate select committee on climate 
change. It is a crisis. Ask the farmers in Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas 
if they think it is a crisis. Ask the people who have been subjected to 
so many changes in the weather because the globe is heating up. They 
believe it is a crisis. The very least we can do is to do what the 
House did and set up a select committee on climate change that is 
bipartisan. The committee can be partnering with the House committee. 
We might actually get something done, not sham votes that everyone 
knows are a joke--a political joke.
  I am hopeful that we can do that. The reason for the select committee 
is clear. If there ever were an issue that demanded focus from this 
Chamber, this is it. Climate change is an existential threat to our 
country and our planet. The last 4 years have been the warmest on 
record. Sea levels are rising and marine life and fishing communities 
are being destroyed. Record flooding is inundating parts of the 
country, most recently the Midwest, and more and more powerful 
hurricanes have buffeted our coasts. Over the next decade, climate 
change will continue to negatively impact every part of American life, 
our health, our economy, our national security, and even our geography, 
and the threats will only grow.
  We can't run into our ideological corners anymore. I am gratified to 
hear a growing number of Republicans admit it is real, admit it is 
caused by human activity, and that we should do something about it. 
That is great news, but let's do something real. Let's do something 
real.
  The Senator mentioned a few bills. I would be happy to look at them. 
I hope he will look at ours, and I hope he will ask his leader, the 
Republican leader, to allow an open debate on the floor with 
amendments. We would welcome that. We would welcome it. Some in the oil 
and gas industry will not like it. That is for sure. Some in the coal 
industry will not like it. That is for sure. But most Americans will.

[[Page S1971]]

  So let's do it. The time for partisanship on this issue is long over. 
The time for one party to block any change and not offer anything that 
they believe in is over. We need to act quickly and boldly to confront 
this challenge before it is too late. It is time to stop the nonsense.
  As I said, we welcome this debate because we are talking about 
climate change for the first time, and the hypocrisy of putting a bill 
on the floor and then voting against it is becoming so clear to the 
American people. But, as a byproduct, we are getting a debate and we 
are getting some of our colleagues for the first time to admit that 
climate change is real and caused by human activity and that we ought 
to do something about it. We welcome it. This committee will help bring 
the kind of bipartisan discussion that my good friend from Wyoming has 
asked for. So let's do it.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules Committee be 
discharged from further consideration of S. Res. 97, a resolution 
establishing the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis and the Senate 
proceed to its immediate consideration; that the resolution be agreed 
to; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon 
the table with no intervening action or debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we be 
given 2 minutes so that the Senator from Rhode Island can ask a 
question of the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate the comments of my distinguished 
chairman on the Environmental Works Committee about carbon capture 
technology, and I am wondering what part of the carbon emissions 
problem he thinks carbon capture will solve, because leaders of the 
carbon capture technology sector have said it is their vision to 
capture 1 percent--1 percent--of carbon emissions.
  What I conclude from that is that carbon capture technology is 
important, but to rely on it at the expense of the course of action 
that we really need is profoundly misguided.
  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. WHITEHOUSE. I am interested in the other 99 percent.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before 
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 27, S.J. Res. 8, a joint resolution 
     recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a 
     Green New Deal.
         Mitch McConnell, David Perdue, John Boozman, Johnny 
           Isakson, John Cornyn, Pat Roberts, Mike Crapo, Thom 
           Tillis, Mike Rounds, Roger F. Wicker, John Thune, 
           Richard Burr, Steve Daines, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, 
           James E. Risch, Roy Blunt.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 8, a joint resolution recognizing the 
duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal, shall be 
brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rules.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cassidy). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who wish to vote or to change their vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 0, nays 57, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 52 Leg.]

                                NAYS--57

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Burr
     Capito
     Cassidy
     Collins
     Cornyn
     Cotton
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Enzi
     Ernst
     Fischer
     Gardner
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hawley
     Hoeven
     Hyde-Smith
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson
     Jones
     Kennedy
     King
     Lankford
     Lee
     Manchin
     McConnell
     McSally
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Perdue
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Romney
     Rounds
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Scott (SC)
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tillis
     Toomey
     Wicker
     Young

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cortez Masto
     Duckworth
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Gillibrand
     Harris
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hirono
     Kaine
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Markey
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Murphy
     Murray
     Peters
     Reed
     Rosen
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall
     Van Hollen
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 0, the nays are 57, 
and 43 Senators responded present.

[[Page S1972]]

  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.

                          ____________________