press. we won't be able to attend to that because we're working under a continuation of last year's old-fashioned numbers. vital research and development programs will go unbegun. and not only that, keeping a c.r. going not l only doesn't save money, it actually costs us money because we're spending dollars on programs that we have decided not to be involved in any more. we want to move in a different direction. the house and senate leaders have decided to do that. members of the pentagon decided to do that. but under a c.r., we're forced to keep spending money on programs we don't need any more. according to general martin, vice chief of staff of the army, delays and misallocated

funds cost $7 billion every month, and that's just for the army. mr. president, we have an opportunity to correct this or we have an opportunity to waste another $20 by a year-long c.r. i am urging the american public to make it known to those of us at veterans day programs this weekend and next week. i'm urging my colleagues to stress this when they talk to the public. there are -- there are appropriation bills that are not yet worked out but for heaven's sake, let's at least do the bill that pays the troops that sends a signal to the rest of the world in these trying times that we are at least going to fund

our defense department and our future veterans who are on active duty and who have taken the oath today that we will do them in a modern and timely fashion. we're five weeks late. let's don't make it another five weeks after this and another five months after that. pass a full-funding appropriation bill for our troops, for the department of defense, and give them the type of representation and government that they deserve based upon their worthy service. thank you, mr. president. and i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate will proceed to the consideration of the following nomination, which the clerk will report. nomination, the judiciary, danielle j. hunsaker of oregon

to be united states district judge for the ninth circuit. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the nomination. is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote: vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change his or her vote? if not, the ayes are 73, the nays are 17, and the nomination is confirmed. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule 22, do hereby bring to a close debate on the nomination of william nardini, of connecticut, to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. the presiding officer: the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of william joseph nardini, of connecticut, to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit, shall be

brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? if not, the yeas are 87, the nays are 3. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary. william joseph nardini of

connecticut to be united states circuit judge for the second circuit. mr. thune: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority whip. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that with respect to the hunsaker nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: without objection u -- without objection. mr. thune: mr. president, i have seven requests for committees to meet during today's session of the senate. they have the approval of the majority and minority leaders. the presiding officer: duly noted. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i come to the floor today to express my concern and disappointment over the decision by the president to formally withdraw the united states from the paris climate agreement. though the president announced this decision over two years ago, this past monday marked the first day his administration could send a letter to the united nations formalizing the

year-long withdrawal process. and of course we know that they did that. american leadership on climate action is being ceded to other countries before our very eyes. with this move, the president is betraying the trust of the american people and betraying the trust of our international allies in the fight against climate change. climate change is a very real and present threat to our environment, to our national security, to our economy, to our health, and to our very way of life. that's why i introduced the international climate accountability act to prevent the president from using funds to withdraw the u.s. from the paris climate agreement. this bipartisan bill would also require the administration to develop a strategic plan for meeting the commitments we made in paris in 2015. we can see on this chart that

the house passed legislation over six months ago -- 188 days since the house passed their legislation, the climate action now act. and yet in the senate, the majority leadership has refused to call up this bill for a vote. and the administration's withdrawal from the paris climate agreement and the general refusal to bring climate change legislation to the floor is out of step with the desires of the american people. approximately two out of every three americans believe it's the job of the federal government to combat climate change, according to a recent poll from the associated press. the same poll found that 64% of americans disapprove of the president's climate change policies. unfortunately, the senate majority leadership continues to refuse to act on climate change,

and yet what we hear from our scientists and experts tell us that we need to act and act now on climate change before it's too late, and this poll shows us, as others have, that a supermajority of the american public wants us to do just that. i've come before this body a number of times in the past to highlight the impact of climate change in my home state of new hampshire. we see very directly the effects of climate change and the farther north you go, the more you see those impacts. our fall foliage season shortened, our maple syrup production is disrupted, our outdoor recreation areas are hampered, our ski industry, snowmobiling, our lobsters are moving north to colder waters, our moose population is down 40%, and lyme disease is on the rise. but today what i really want to

highlight are the revelations that have been made clearer in recent weeks by our national security experts. a report entitled "implications of climate change for the u.s. army" that was commissioned by the current chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, general mark milley, reads, the department of defense is precariously unprepared for the national security implications of climate change-induced global security challenges. the pentagon's report on the effects of a changing climate to the department of defense reads -- and we can see it right here -- "the effects of a changing climate are a national security issue with potential impacts to department of defense missions, operational plans, and installations." and when former secretary of defense, james mattis, was before the senate armed services committee for his confirmation

hearing in 2017, his testimony read in part, and i quote, climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today. i had the chance to ask him in that hearing, do you believe climate change is a security threat? and he responded this way. he said, climate change can be a driver of instability and the department of defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon. he went on to say, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader whole-of-government response. now, i could go on detailing the calamitous conclusions of our national security experts, but instead i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, that a letter from nearly 60 national security and military leaders addressed to the president be included in the record. the presiding officer: without

objection. mrs. shaheen: thank you. this letter very directly rebukes the attempt by the president to create a committee within the national security council that would undermine military and i intelligence judgments on the threats that are posed by climate change. so instead of recognizing those, developing a plan to address them, what the president has been trying to do is to figure out how to undermine those very judgments. so, mr. president, at this time as if in legislative session, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. 1743 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration, that the bill be considered 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. the presiding officer: is there objection? a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. a senator: reserving the right to object, with all due respect to my good friend and colleague from new hampshire, we both serve on the foreign relations committee. mr. risch: the foreign relations committee is, as has been noted, the committee of jurisdiction on this matter. we're talking about the paris climate agreement, and what senator shaheen is attempting to do with this -- and again, with all due respect, i understand where she's coming from on it -- is to stop the president from withdrawing from the paris climate agreement that was made by his predecessor, president obama. let me say, first of all, that the senator's right that the changes that we're experiencing are great.

they have large effects. they are of great magnitude. and just as importantly, changes that we make attempting to address this are going to have great magnitude, in a great magnitude they are going to affect the american people both financially and in the quality of life and in the lifestyle that they enjoy. so we can't do anything about the changes that's occurring right now, but what we can do is do something about the way that we attack this and the way that we make changes to our lifestyle and what we will give up and what people are willing to give up in order to address this. so the way this is done is nations get together to talk about this. the 200 nations get together. they did, and they came up with a paris climate agreement. under article 2 of the united states constitution, section 2, the president is given the

power to make treaties with other countries, and that's what president obama attempted to do with this. however, section 2 goes on to say that the president can make these treaties provided two-thirds of the senate present concur. so that is a treaty, and that's how ordinarily agreements are made between nations. obviously we can do things ourselves without having a two-thirds vote, with 60% vote in the senate and a simple majority vote in the house. we can do that amongst ourselves if we want to change u.s. law as to how we're going to change the way we do industry and the way we lead our lives. we can do that with that kind of a vote. if we're going to agree with other countries, on the other hand, it takes a two-thirds vote. at the time this was negotiated, i disagreed with president obama, and i disagree

with the accord at this time. and the reason i do is i really believe that this is a bad deal for the people of the united states. i really believe that we can get a better deal. and i think what we need to do if we're going to do that is we need to do it on a bipartisan basis. there is not going to be a two-thirds vote without a bipartisan agreement on this issue. so i would like to see this addressed. i would like to see us as the foreign relations committee, us as the first branch of government constitutionally protected as such be a part of this and not just the second branch negotiating and then entering into the agreement. so the president has, number one, he has every right to withdraw from this agreement, just as president obama had the right to enter into this executive agreement. i for one agree that he should withdraw from the paris accord. in fact, i encouraged him to do so personally when he was

running, then when he was elected and continuously since then. that doesn't mean we should walk away from this by any stretch of the imagination. but i think what we should do is do what the united states constitution envisions, and that is you have a negotiation between us, the united states, and other countries and then the matter be submitted to the united states senate for a vote to see if two-thirds of us can agree that this is the way to do this. based on that, with all due respect to my good friend from new hampshire, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is noted. the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: mr. president, i'm not surprised by my colleague's objection. i am, however, disappointed. and i have to disagree to some extent with the rationale because in fact this was not a treaty. it was a voluntary nonbinding agreement that the united states

entered into voluntarily. i'm not saying that the president, president trump doesn't have the authority to withdraw from the agreement. i'm saying he's wrong to withdraw because it's not in the united states national interest to withdraw from this agreement. there is an international race to develop clean energy technologies and practices that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and this race exists in large part because of the goals that were established in the paris climate agreement. and instead of leading the pack in this race, which the united states should be doing, the president has chosen to put us on the sidelines. we're going to watch our allies and our adversaries clamor to fill the void that he's created. and after decades of american leadership in clean energy technology innovations, other countries are now poised to develop new low-carbon technologies to help countries throughout the world meet their

paris commitments. those could be american technologies. those could be american jobs. and instead of being developed in the u.s., too many of these new technologies and the jobs that go with them will be developed outside of our shores. this is a missed opportunity for the united states. it's a setback for the american economy and for american workers. the scientists are in agreement worldwide, climate change is the single greatest environmental public health and economic challenges that our world has ever faced. and right now watching the president withdraw the u.s. from the paris climate agreement, sitting idly by, this congress is surrendering american leadership in the fight against climate change. so i hope that as time goes by the president and our republican colleagues will rethink the

position and acknowledge the need to do something to address the climate challenge that we're facing and to make sure that the united states is in line for those jobs and the new energy economy that's being created. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, first of all, i don't question the sincerity whatsoever of my good friend from new hampshire. indeed, she is quite correct that the united states has been a leader as far as developing methods by which we clean up the air and clean up the water. there's nothing that's happening here today at this moment that is going to affect that at all. american companies are going to continue to be on the front edge of this on a very innovative basis, and i have every confidence that american businesses will rise to the occasion and will continue to

actually be the world leader in this regard. what i object to is making an agreement with other countries that truly bind the united states, binds united states citizens but doing it without going through the constitutional process of submitting the agreement that is between our country and others as it specifically, very specifically provided in article 2, section 2. i think if we did that, i think we would wind up with a better agreement. i think we would wind up with a bipartisan agreement. and we all know that when we have a bipartisan agreement, we do substantially better as far as rising to the occasion and all getting behind the effort. thank you,thank you, mr. presid. i yield the floor. mrs. shaheen: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new hampshire. mrs. shaheen: yesterday a bipartisan group met with seven fortune 500 companies. they were all on the cutting edge of new energy technologies, and everyone around the table said what they

need is to see policies at the federal level that encourage the development of new energy technologies and what we can do to address climate change. but i like what my colleague said about being able to work together to address this. i hope that we can do that. i'm ready to sit down any time he is to look at things that we might be able to agree on that will help us move forward to address climate change. and i appreciate his willingness to work in a bipartisan way. thank you. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mrs. fischer: thank you, mr. president. i rise this evening to pay tribute to all the men and women who have worn our nation's uniform in defense of our freedom. veterans day is a deeply

meaningful day for our nation. our country sets this day aside to honor her service members. in nebraska, we remember the sacrifices of our own heroes. we admire the courage required to leave your home in nebraska and serve america in her hour of need. it was over 100 years ago at the 11th hour on the 11th day during the 11th month of the year that the roars of battle in world war i fell silent. since then nebraskans and all americans have come together every year to renew our appreciation for our nation's heroes. we pledge that no matter how much time has passed, we will never forget their valor, their service, and their selflessness. in june it was one of the

greatest honors of my life to gather at freedom's altar in normandy, france, to commemorate the 75th anniversary of d-day. i was overwhelmed with both gratitude and pride for our men and women who ensure that our freedom lives on and evil is vanquished. 75 years earlier minutes from where i was standing, omaha's corporal ed arrived at the beechesz -- beaches of normandy did i. as the herald reports, quote, he leaped over the side of the landing craft into shoulder-deep water carrying a roll of communications wire. holding the wire and his rifle above water as he waded through dodging an onslaught of enemy artillery fire. by the grace of god, he completed his mission and he survived the normandy invasion.

corporal morrisette continued fighting for our nation in france and germany. following the war, his career as a civilian engineer eventually led him to offutt air force base. recently his courage and his dedication were recognized. at the age of 96, the government of france awarded corporal morrisette the highest military or civilian medal. the french legion of honor. corporal morrisette's story inspires all of us to remember that our duty to honor our nation's heroes is never finished. the responsibility falls to all of us to listen to their stories and to carry them on. not only do we honor our troops with our words, we salute them with our actions. nebraskans have always taken this to heart.

it's why you read stories like that of chuck ogle from carney. he was a pilot in the 498th u.s. army medical corps air ambulance company during the tet offensive in vietnam. every single day he carries with him a list of his 14 fellow service members who were killed in action. it's why you see stories of hero flights for nebraska veterans to visit washington, d.c. last october a plane carried 80 korean veterans from hall county to our nation's capital to visit the monuments dedicated to their service. this marked the tenth flight for the county's veterans to washington. and now every living veteran in hall county has been given the opportunity to make this trip. and it's why over the last few years business leaders and

members of the omaha community rallied around the goal of building a new ambulatory clinic at the omaha v.a. hospital. in response to delays to update the aging omaha v.a. facility, i introduced and president obama signed into law the chip in for vets act in 2016. the the bill allows control of v.a. projects to be placed where it should be, and that's in the hands of local communities. it allows communities like omaha to take the lead on new projects by permitting the v.a. to accept private contributions to ensure v.a. projects are finished both on time and on budget. omaha community and business leaders came up with this idea in the first place, and they have delivered. construction began on a new ambulatory center on the omaha

v.a. campus in may of 2018. after an original cost estimate of $120 million, the government accountability office released a preliminary report that found the implementation of the chip-in for vets act would reduce the total estimated cost to $86 million. the report projected that the new facility is now $34 million under budget, and it's four and a half months ahead of schedule. in the same report, a v.a. official stated that because of the agency's current major construction backlog, the chip-in approach allowed work on the omaha project to begin at least five years sooner than it would have under a normal process. now nebraska's veterans may get

the quality care that they need and deserve earlier than expected. the success of this project is a testament to the deep respect and admiration nebraskans have for our veterans. scripture encourages us to pay our dues wherever they may be. if someone is due respect, show them respect. if honor is due, honor them. the amount of honor and respect our state and nation owe our veterans is something that we can never fully repay. our country could not live on without their service and sacrifice. i want to sincerely thank our veterans for their service when our country needed it the most, whether it was in the trenches of europe while liberating the

continent from evil or in the pacific theater during world war ii or stopping the spread of communism in korea and vietnam or defending our nation against terrorism in iraq and afghanistan, the rescue of human freedom began with you. i can promise you, america will never forget your incredible courage and patriotism. and we will continue to strive to be worthy of the freedom that burns brighter today because of your service. on behalf of all nebraskans and a grateful country, thank you. may god bless our nation's veterans and their families and may god bless the united states of america. mr. president, i yield the floor. mr. inhofe: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma.

mr. inhofe: mr. president, i ask to be recognized as if in morning business for such time as i may consume. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. inhofe: thank you. you know, we don't hear that very often. i just heard the term from the senator from nebraska, under budget and ahead of schedule. you did something right. good for you. last -- i've been asked several times in the last couple days where we are on what i consider to be the most significant bill of the year every year, which is the defense authorization bill. and i've been having to give the same answer for the last three or four days. and it's unfortunate, but i think it's going to ultimately happen. last week i came down here, i talked about why we needed to pass the national defense authorization act and why a full-year continuing resolution is totally unacceptable. it would just be devastating to us. i am back here again because last week nothing changed.

and that's not okay. the reason nothing has changed is because many of the members of the house are off someplace -- i think they're in afghanistan or someplace -- son a trip, and we're in the middle of negotiating. let me make sure we understand what we're talking about here. we passed for 58 consecutive years the national defense authorization bill. we haven't miss add year during that time. so we'll ultimately pass it. but we did -- and i have to say, this is not a partisan statement that i'm making about this, because the senate -- the house and the senate democrats and republicans did a good job, and i particularly want to thank jack reed. jack reed and i -- i'm the chairman of the committee, he's the ranking member -- we did ours in record time. we set a record actually a year ago. we did this in a time -- a

shorter period of time than has been done in 40 years. and we are anticipating doing that again. and so we did our bill in the senate, and everything came out fine. we ended up passing it with only two votes in opposition to it. so there's no reason that we're not doing it right now. the reason this is critical, if for some reason we didn't get this thing done until december, our kids over there would not be funded. i'm talking about payrolls, i'm talking about everything else. our military would stop in its tracks. it's not going to happen. the one reason we're know it's not going to happen is because we passed the short-bill version that upset everyone that is taking everything out of the bill that has nothing to do with defense and just passing that. it's kind of in the weeds, it's kind of complicated. but nonetheless we're going to end up getting it. but we need to get it just in a

matter of days now as soon as the members of the committee in the house are back in town. now, what kind of a message do my democrat colleagues think they're sending our troops who lay their lives on the line every day if we don't prioritize their pay, their housing, their programs to care for their families while they're away? what kind of a message do the democrat colleagues think that we are sending our allies and our partners, those who depend on us? and what kind of a message are we sending those who are not our allies? and this is the problem that we're having. and i say the democrats in the house because it's not the republicans in the house, it's not the democrats in the senate. to suggest the democrats in the house -- we passed our bill on a bipartisan way here in the senate, and we just need to get this thing finished. it's the most important bill of

the year. now, they claim that they're not supporting our partners -- that we are not supporting our partners in syria, then they turn around on a dime and refuse to authorize the very assistance that keeps our partners safe and effective in the fight against isis. and i'm concerned about the kind of message that our colleagues think they're send our adversaries. our adversaries -- for them, they enjoy this dysfunction. that's what they want. they want defense funding mired in partisan debate. they don't want us to catch up. and if we don't take action now, partisan bickering over supporting our troops and investings in national security will become our achilles heel. at the end of the day, all of these challenges won't just go away because we want them to go away. they're out there. and to meet these challenges, our troops need equipment, they need training, they need weapons, and everything that's

outlined in this blueprint. this is, by the way -- this is the blueprint which is the national defense strategy. it's a national defense strategy commission. this is put together by an equal number of democrats and republicans well over a year ago as to how do we want to handle this thing, how do we want to handle our national defense, what's our strategy going to be? the president adopted this and it's a good strategy. we have been following this in our committee to the letter. and so we have this strategy commission report. there is a quote from general adams, a military leader from world war world war ii on through vietnam. his name sounds familiar because he was the one that the adams tank was named after. he talked about how after world war ii the united states failed to properly modernize and train our military, and who paid for it? our soldiers, our airmen, our marines, our sailors. they paid for it with their lives.

he said, quote, -- this is a quote now. the monuments we raised to their heroism and sacrifice are really surrogates for the monuments we owe ourselves for our blindness to reality, for our unsubstantiated wishful thinking about how war could not come. and that's exactly what happened. he was true then, and it's true now. so to say these things can wait while the house goes on another recess or to use them as a bargaining chip or to forego them, to instead wage war on our own president, it's, at best, a waste of time and resources and, at worst, a dangerous abdication of the constitutional duty. now, unfortunately, the truth is, if we kick the can down the road on these defense policy and funding bills, we're just adding snore challenge to our defense.

we were off to a great start last year, defense appropriations acted on time for the first time in a decade, and as i say, we passed the ndaa over here the fastest that we've done it in 40 years. so all of the service leaders who came in before the senate armed services committee said that having an on-time appropriations and authorizations was critical to rebuilding the force. now, we've got the national defense strategy in the commission report as a road map. we've got a budget deal. there's no reason we can't get this done. there's no good reason my democrat colleagues are dragging their feet. our senior military leaders said that a continuing resolution is absolutely the worst thing that we can do. by the way, a lot of people don't know what a continuing resolution is. if you pass a continuing resolution, because you can't get appropriations bills passed, then you're just continuing what you did the previous year. well, that doesn't work when

you're caring on a military. because the needs we have in the coming year are not the same needs. we have those programs completed. yet we would still have to fund them. that's a separate issue, but it is one that is critically important, and it is being considered today. so i'm surprised that the democrats -- this is the democrats in the house, not the senate. the senate democrats and republicans worked very well together. but i'm surprised that the democrats in the house are willing to resort to a full-year c.r. it's quitting when our troops need us the most. my republican colleagues in the house, led by the house armed services member thornberry, put out this document that talks about how america's military would be damaged under a full c.r. now, no one has talked about this before. i'm glad he came out with it. and i'm going to mention the five things that he mentioned.

it would extend the pilot shortage of our air force, extend because we are still climbing out of the current shortage. now, we do have a problem. we have a problem in the air force. we have a problem every place that we're using -- flying equipment, whether it is fixed-wing or otherwise. and this is a problem that is a serious problem. but if we were to somehow have to do a full-year c.r., that won't solve -- that problem won'ting solved. it would prevent the military from amonging it's personnel, including necessary efforts to grow the force, pay the military moves and lock in bonuses for our troops. they wouldn't happen if we end umwith a one-year c.r. it would force the navy to cancel ship maintenance and training. it would worsen the existing munitions shortage by preventing d.o.d. from buying more than 6,000 weapons and finally, we'd

fall even further behind our competitors on hypersonic weapons, artificial intelligence, next-generation equipment that we need to face all challenges that we just talked about. now, hypersonic weapons, as an example, i saw the other day for the first time, in fact i used this picture. i brought it down to the senate floor. a hypersonic weapon is kind of weapon of the future. it's one that works at five to ten times the speed of sound. it's a type of artillery. and it's a time of munition. and we were actually prior to the last administration -- that was the obama administration -- we were ahead of our peer competitors, which are china and russia. now we're actually behind china and russia. that's how serious -- you know, i talk to people in the real world. i go back to oklahoma, and i talk to people. they assume that we in the united states have the very best

of everything. we don't. we have allowed other countries, primarily china and russia, to catch up with us and actually put us behind in some areas. not to mention the waste of the tax payer dollars. c.r. wastes billions of dollars creating repetitive work and injecting uncertainty in contracting and process and forces the rest of the work at year's end. it is totally unnecessary and some of this should not be happening. i've been meeting with my fellow conferees regularly more than we ever have and before the ndaa negotiations, making sure we have a backup plan if we can't reach an agreement on the ndaa but time is running out. here's the reality. we've only got 20 legislative days left in the senate and the house has even less than that because of the recess week that they took. if the house sends us articles

of impeachment, that would eat up all the time in december and it could spill into january. that would mean that we go beyond the deadline that our troops needed to be funded, and that is a reality that we've never had to face before. we don't have time left. we need to make these bills a priority in the way we always have done before. the ndaa has passed for the last 58 years. it's the most important thing that we do each year. in june the senate bill passed 86-8. 86-8, that's a landslide. that was right down -- i mean not down party lines. that was on a bipartisan basis. i'm grateful to the senate democrats for their partnership and their work in creating and passing this bipartisan bill. jack reed is my counterpart over there. he's the ranking member in the senate armed services committee, and we worked hand

in glove throughout this process and even set records. we did our job, and it's got to be completed in the house. this happened in line with the best traditions of the senate armed services committee, a tradition that spans almost six decades. usually this is a bipartisan bill. both sides give and take. so it concerns me to see partisan politics being inserted into this must-pass bill when we go to conference between the house and senate. it concerns me to see democrats filibustering defense appropriations to prove a political point. it concerns me to see them prioritizing their misguided attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election through impeachment instead of taking care of our troops and with the ndaa. if we can't keep defense authorizations free, the partisan gridlock, what kind of a message does that send americans who rely on our troops

for protection? our allies, they're out there too. they rely on us. so i said before the world is watching. we're sending a message and we need to make that a successful message. let me say one more thing about the bill. this is now a reality. when i filed this, we thought the chances we'd have to use it were just very, very remote. if they should go through with this thing that they're threatening to do over on the house side, an impeachment process -- people don't realize this -- it's a simple vote of the majority. if you want to impeach somebody. it's the second step that is significant, and that is if they would impeach, they don't have to have any evidence, any documentation, any problem at all. if they just want to get a majority of people to say let's impeach the president, they can say we'll impeach the president. but the problem there is that then it comes over to the senate, and the senate has to

go through this long process, and that is what we'd be competing with when we're not getting the defense authorization bill done. so the skinny bill is important. it is now filed. it's ready to pass if we should have to do that. nobody wants to do it, but we may end up having to do it. that's the good news and the bad news. this is the most important bill of the year. we need to get it passed. a senator: thank you, mr. president. mr. whitehouse: i thank the chairman of the armed services committee for his bipartisan work with my senior senator jack reed year after year on the national defense authorizations. mr. president, i would like to ask unanimous consent that lucia

ciminella a triple a-s fellow in my office be granted floorns for the remainder -- granted floor privileges for the remainder of this college. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. whitehouse: this speech reports on my trip to colorado to see how climate change is affecting the centennial state and to learn more about the remarkable action that coloradans are taking to confront climate change. colorado is the 18th state i have visited on my climate road trips. typically these trips land me in states where people fighting for climate action needs some bucking up. often i remind those people that there's hope even if their state legislature may be captured by fossil fuel interests, even if climate change is a dirty word in local hangouts. that was not the case in

colorado. in fact, it's a state on a major climate change winning streak. coloradans were the ones bucking me up. i saw that right off the bat at the alliance center in downtown denver. the center's chief operating officer, jason paige, took me around this lead certified space which is part business incubator, part rallying point for an array of organizations fighting for climate action in colorado and throughout the country. jason and his colleagues hosted me and local environmental leaders to discuss the work they have done, and they have done a lot. just in the last year colorado passed and signed into law seven important climate and clean energy bills. they include legislation to set targets for cutting the state's climate pollution relative to 2005 levels by at least 90% by

2050. the legislature passed four -- four -- measures to boost the adoption of electric vehicles, and it passed bills to help move to new energy-efficient home appliances to ease the transition to renewable energy for excel, colorado's largest utility, and to collect long-term climate data so the state can craft even more smart legislation to combat climate change and build resiliency to climate consequences. to hear how colorado is going to hit its renewable targets, i met with excel, state public utility commissioners and govern jarred polis. their message to me was simple. it's the challenge and they're going to do it. they certainly aren't backing away from the challenge. on top of the state's renewable goal, excel has committed to an 80% cut in carbon emissions

across its portfolio by 2030 and to reach 100% carbon-free energy by 2050. excel, supported by the colorado public utilities commission, is now incorporating the social cost of carbon, a key measure of the long-term damage done by carbon pollution, into its planning process. on top of forward-looking policy, colorado is fortunate to be a leader developing clean energy technology. for that i visited pan sonic's pena station next project they call it, a collaboration between the city of denver, the utility excel, the denver international airport, the state department of transportation, and pan sonic. the project is designed to show what a smart city powered by

renewable energy looks like. it includes two megawatts of solar, a massive battery storage system which i'm looking at right here, a facility to test autonomous vehicles, and an operation center that can integrate all that technology for better efficiency. at the national renewable energy laboratory in golden, i saw some of the most advanced wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies in the world. this national lab is testing the next generation of wind turbines, hydrogen fuel cells, autonomous vehicles, solar panels, smart grid technology, and more. their job isn't just to develop these technologies, but also to help private industry adopt them, bringing clean energy to

scale and creating jobs in the process. this is me at enrel. i am painting a solar-activated fluid that they have come up with on to a plate and instantly generating energy from the lamp coming above. as i painted it, you could see the dials come up as energy was generated just off that freshly painted, like putting nail polish down on a surface. so they're doing some pretty amazing stuff. i could not help at enrel notice a familiar logo, t.p.i. composites, a company that makes top of the line composite materials in rhode island. national rearl -- they work with this rhode island footprint

to develop next generation materials. our composite alliance of rhode island includes t.p.i. they have a big roll in building wind turbine blades and other energy technologies. colorado feels this urgency because the mountain west is feeling the effects of climate change more and more every day. i met with leading climate scientists for a briefing at the national center for atmospheric research in boulder overlooking the flatirons at the feet of the rocky mountains. doctors james doe, laura reed, daniel swain, jackie schuman and bill mahoney told me about their research into climate change's effect in the west, how vegetation is withering, how wildfires grow more frequent, have longer duration and are more intense, how hydrology changes as weather

patterns shift and temperatures rise throughout the region and how extreme weather events like sudden downpours and prolonged droughts are becoming a new unfortunate normal. in fort collins, i met with truly dedicated public servants from across the federal government, people who specialize in land management and climate adaptation and had gotten together to coordinate their efforts. these exceptional public servants spent their careers protecting our public lands. they are witnessing firsthand the devastation wrought on our public lands by climate change. they described to me their battles to safeguard stands of old growth sequoyahs, a national treasure, to rebuild beaches and dunes in the face of rising seas and stronger oceanic storms. and even to cover melting

glaciers with sheeting to try to help prevent them from melting quite so quickly. they love these lands. they work all their lives to help and save and protect these lands. they do everything in their power to honor and serve these lands, and the fact that they battle on in spite of the heartbreaking pace and severity of the destruction climate change is causing is a human inspiration. and speaking of inspiration, i closed out my trip with an event organized by the group p.o.w., protect our winters, to hear what climate change means to the winter sports and outdoor industry. skiers and snowboarders and industry executives told me about the climate threat to the

multibillion-dollar winter sports industry in colorado which relies on plenty of snow and cold weather to thrive. professional skier cody sorillo told me, i'm quoting him here, i fear there will be no more snow by the end of the century. i fear a whole ski culture will cease to exist. i fear economic impacts on summit county and all other mountain towns. i fear the loss of an industry that has given me so much. i fear that kids will not get the opportunity to see a first snow, to feefl winter's -- to feel winter's inaugural bite on the nose and to miss out on so many wonderful lessons. these fears are driving cody and other world-class athletes to speak out. he and his