Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise today to discuss three individuals who have been nominated by President Biden to serve as members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, also known as FERC, F-E-R-C.

Just last week, climate scientists announced that our planet has surpassed the water half-degree-Celsius warming threshold for the 12th consecutive month. The signs of climate change are all around us. Alaska's rivers are turning orange as a result of rapidly melting permafrost and the resulting chemical reaction. Much of the Western United States is experiencing temperatures 20 to 30 degrees hotter than usual for this time of year, and scientists tell us that there is more carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere today than ever before--in history. We are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change. Having said that, I have always believed that in adversity lies opportunity, and there is still time today, and there is still opportunity today.

Thankfully, last Congress, the Presiding Officer and I and a bunch of other folks on this floor passed the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act--two once-in-a-generation investments in infrastructure and in fighting climate change. Together, these laws are making and stimulating the investments in clean energy and infrastructure that we need in order to reduce our emissions and to meet our climate goals. As a result, more clean energy projects are in the pipeline in this country than ever before. In fact, according to the Clean Investment Monitor, clean energy and transportation investment hit a record $71 billion in the first quarter of this year-- that is $71 billion with a ``b'' this year--dwarfing last year's $51 billion in the same timeframe.

We haven't stopped there. We haven't stopped there. The Biden administration is taking strong steps to build a more efficient and effective environmental review process in order to connect clean energy to the grid as soon as possible. For example, in April of this year, the Council on Environmental Quality issued their final rule to implement changes to something called the National Environmental Policy Act made by the Fiscal Responsibility Act last year. This rule reforms the permitting process and will accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies, like solar, like wind, and like battery storage-- all while advancing environmental justice and ensuring that communities have a voice in the build-out of critical infrastructure.

One might ask, how does the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission support our clean energy future? Well, that is a good question. Let me take a shot at it.

As it turns out, connecting clean energy to the electric grid and delivering this energy to consumers who demand it remains one of the major challenges

to help transition our grid to reliable, carbon-free sources.

With well over 2 terawatts of energy--I asked my staff, what is a terawatt? I think a terawatt is a billion. Two terawatts would be 2 billion. So with well over 2 billion watts of energy--most of it clean energy currently on the sidelines--FERC plays a vital role in expanding our Nation's transmission capacity in order to allow new projects to move forward quickly. To put that figure in perspective, that is 2 billion--2 billion--watts of energy. That is double the amount of electricity-generating capacity that we have today. For example, just last month, FERC finalized two rules to tackle pressing challenges in the transmission planning process.

But there is more to do. There is a lot more to do. It is up to us in this body, in this Congress and over in the House of Representatives-- but especially in this body--to ensure that the Commission has a full slate of Commissioners in order to continue with their work to modernize our electric grid for the 21st century.

As we know, President Biden has nominated not one, not two, but three well-qualified individuals--two are Democrats, and one is a Republican--to serve terms on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. One is David Rosner, one is Lindsay See, and the other is Judy Chang.

We are joined here on the Senate floor by the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He will have more to say about this in a minute, I know. Last week, his committee that he chairs and leads reported these three nominations out of committee with broad bipartisan support.

Should they all be confirmed this week, Congress will have done its job to ensure that the Commission is fully seated so that FERC can continue to advance these policies that we need to enable us to bring more clean energy off the sidelines and onto the grid.

I am grateful for the bipartisan support shown so far for these nominees in committee. I salute the committee chairman in no small part for that. I hope that in a few minutes here, they are going to receive the same kind of broad bipartisan support today and in the days to come.

With that, as a West Virginia native, I am happy to yield the floor to another West Virginia native--two former Governors who find common ground here on these nominees to FERC.

With that, I yield the floor.

Barely recovering.

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

Mr. President, I rise today in support of Christopher T. Hanson's nomination to serve an additional 5-year term as a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which he has chaired for several years.

I want to begin by saying a few words about this pivotal moment for clean nuclear energy in the United States of America.

Carbon-free nuclear power plays a critical and growing role in our electricity grid and is indispensable in our ongoing efforts to address the climate crisis and strengthen our Nation's energy security.

As many of our colleagues know, including the Presiding Officer, who is a Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, nuclear energy has become the largest source of reliable clean energy in the United States of America--the largest--providing about 20 percent of our Nation's electricity--but listen to this--and nearly half of our clean power.

The Biden administration is taking strong steps to ensure that nuclear energy can continue to be deployed both safely and efficiently. For example, just last week, the White House announced a new administration-wide effort to bolster the domestic nuclear energy industry by further harnessing American ingenuity and cutting-edge technologies.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also plays a vital role in facilitating the deployment of clean nuclear energy by protecting the safety of our existing nuclear facilities, while also ensuring that new sources of clean nuclear power meet the same rigorous standards for safety.

It is up to us, and it is up to us in Congress--the House and the Senate--to ensure that the Commission has both the strong leadership and the resources necessary for the 21st century.

That is why I am working closely with our ranking member, Shelly Capito of West Virginia, and other Members of our Environment and Public Works Committee to draft legislation known as the ADVANCE Act.

If signed into law, this legislation will provide the Commission the tools, the resources, and the workforce that it needs to safely usher in the future of nuclear energy in our country.

At this crucial moment for new nuclear technologies and our climate, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission also needs a full slate of Commissioners in order for this plan to succeed.

President Biden has nominated a chair, its current Chair Hanson, to serve another 5-year term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

He has skillfully led the Nuclear Regulatory Commission during his tenure as Chair for the last 4 years. Under his leadership, the Commission has undertaken significant efforts to modernize the Agency while dealing with constrained resources.

He has gone above and beyond to engage both the industry and our public, and he has advanced our efforts to slow climate change by leading the Commission to establish a regulatory framework for the safe licensing and operation of new carbon-free technologies. I have no doubt that if he is reconfirmed, Chair Hanson will extend his track record well into a second term and beyond.

Last month, the Environment and Public Works Committee advanced his nomination out of committee with broad, bipartisan support, and I hope to see Chair Hanson reconfirmed with broad bipartisan support, again today.

Senator Capito and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting Chair Hanson's nomination so that he can continue serving our Nation with skill and dedication.

With that, I am going to ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

Madam President, for years, many of our colleagues have said on this Senate floor, they have said in committee hearing rooms, they have said on cable news shows that there is a crisis at our southern border. And they have been right.

Well, today, we actually have the opportunity to do something about it. Once again, we have bipartisan legislation before us that works to address

the challenges of a broken and decades-old immigration system.

Along with our other colleagues here this afternoon, I rise to urge all Members of the Senate to put aside politics, to do what I think we all believe to be the right thing, and to vote in favor of the bipartisan Border Act.

As a former chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, I know that we have tried to come together in Congress to fix our immigration system for about as long as I can remember, under Presidents and congressional leadership of both parties.

Our colleagues have oftentimes heard me say that bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions, and that is true. And in the case of fixing our Nation's immigration laws, that has never been more true.

Thanks to the tireless work of a Democrat from Connecticut, a Republican from Oklahoma, and an Independent from Arizona, along with members of their staffs, we have reached a bipartisan compromise on one of the toughest issues our country faces today.

I am proud to say that after 4 long months of negotiations between our three colleagues and members of the Biden administration, including the Secretary of Homeland Security, we have crafted the strongest border security bill in decades.

The legislation produced during these negotiations proved that bipartisanship is not just aspirational; it is ours for the grasp; it is ours for the taking. The legislation produced during these negotiations proves that bipartisanship is not just aspirational, but it is actually possible.

Yet despite all of this hard work and the countless hours our colleagues invested in hammering out this critical piece of legislation, many of our Republican colleagues rejected this same bill earlier this year, largely at the behest of Donald Trump.

I would like to quote again, as Senator Stabenow has, what Donald Trump said on his social media account earlier this year. This is a quote:

Republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration

until after we elect more Senators and Congressmen/women in

November. Dems are just playing games, have no intention of

doing anything to solve this decades-old problem. We can pass

great legislation after the Red Wave.

While Democrats, Republicans, and Independents negotiated in good faith, it was Donald Trump who decided he would rather attempt to sow chaos--chaos at the border, rather than to deal with it and to fix it.

It was also incredibly disappointing to see so many of our Republican colleagues, especially in the House, turn their backs on this bipartisan approach and play politics with our immigration policy. They chose to put Donald Trump first over what is best for our country.

Fixing the crisis at our southern border requires tough policy choices, but it also gives us an opportunity to seek some wisdom from the Scripture. I believe we need to look no further than the New Testament's Matthew 25, where we find these words: When I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? That is what it says: When I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me?

Many immigrants seeking refuge here oftentimes leave their home countries and brave horrible conditions at home in order to seek a better life in this country--a life of freedom and a life of opportunity.

We know all too well the factors that have contributed to the challenges at our border. Among them are a global pandemic, increased violence and criminal activity, the smuggling of illicit narcotics, and our Nation's own devastating addiction to illegal drugs, not to mention authoritarian government rule and poverty throughout the Southern Hemisphere. Those are just some of the root causes.

If we are serious about addressing the challenges of our immigration system, it is imperative that we focus on these root causes of migration.

The bipartisan Border Act before us would finally work to make our country safer by increasing resources and implementing policy changes both at the border and to our immigration system as a whole.

This legislation has numerous endorsements from some unlikely places, including the Border Patrol union and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So today, we now have another opportunity to choose policy over politics, to choose principle over politics. Everyone on the Senate floor today knows that improving the security of our border is not just good policy; it is the right thing to do.

In fact, some 84 percent of all voters in this country believe that we should be prioritizing reforms to our immigration system rather than sticking to the status quo--84 percent.

As U.S. Senators, we are elected to serve our constituents, the American people, and we have an opportunity today to meet that responsibility by enacting the legislation that is before us. Our three Senate colleagues have proven that working together is possible, and now it is up to the rest of us to do the right thing.

Let's finish the job. Let's implement a lasting solution, and let's do it together.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, long before I ever thought of running for office, I was a little kid born in a West Virginia coal mining town called Beckley. My sister and I ended up going to the same grade school not too far from our house.

As a kid, I was pretty well behaved and didn't get into much trouble, but in the first grade, I got in a fight. I got in a fight because some kid was picking on my sister, who was a year older, in the second grade. He was a much bigger guy, and it was not a fair fight. I got involved in it and took him out with one swing. That was the last punch that I think I had thrown in anger. But I didn't like the idea of a big guy, a bully, trying to push around somebody, whether it was my sister or not. I have never cared for that in other situations growing up and watching the behavior of people in all kinds of different situations.

Our country, if you go back to our founding, if you recall, we took on the biggest nation on Earth, the strongest nation on Earth, Great Britain. It was not a fair fight. They had us badly outgunned, outnumbered. And somebody came to our rescue. The persons who came to our rescue were the French. If it weren't for the French, we would still be, maybe, a colony of Great Britain. But the French stood up and said: We are here to help.

There is a time for people to stand--countries to stand by and allow things to happen, and there is a time to stand up and be heard. We were helped as a nation over 200 years ago by the French. We have, I think, a moral obligation to help make sure that Ukraine has an opportunity to continue to go forward and to be a democratic nation. They are a democratic nation. They actually choose--they elect their own leaders. Vladimir Putin doesn't care very much for that. He thinks they shouldn't be allowed to do so and has decided to use force to be able to take away the opportunity to be a free nation.

We have a couple of opportunities. We can criticize Putin, the Russians, for what they are doing or we can actually do something about it.

I think I may be the last Vietnam veteran serving here in the U.S. Senate. When we go out from here, I like to run. Many, many mornings when I have gone for a run near the Capitol, I have run out to the Lincoln Memorial. On my way back, I run right by the Vietnam Memorial. It is black granite. There are names of I want to say maybe 59,000 people who died in that war I served in.

We got involved in that war. It was not a popular war. It wasn't popular with my generation. But we got involved in that war. The communists in North Vietnam were coming in and trying to take over the south. We ended up, for better or for worse, aligning with the south. We know what the outcome turned out to be. A lot of people died. A lot of people died in that war. I know a number of them, and my guess is my colleagues do as well.

I tell that story because we have a situation here that is not altogether different in which the Ukrainian people, who want to defend themselves--they want to preserve their democracy, and they are willing to make the tough fight if we will help them and the rest of the free world will help them.

God bless our President and leaders of a bunch of other countries who said: We are not going to walk away and let

Putin have his way and take away the democracy of the people of Ukraine. We are going to help them. We are going to help them not by sending--as we did in the Vietnam war--our own young soldiers, sailors, and airmen. We are not going to send them to Ukraine to defend Ukraine. We are going to send them munitions. We are going to send them drones. We are going to send them missiles. We are going to send them ships and aircraft. We will do that.

That is really all the Ukrainians are asking for. That is all they are asking for. They are asking for that kind of help. We ought to provide it. We ought to provide it.

I used to fly missions. I was a naval flight officer, P-3 aircraft mission commander. We used to fly a lot of surveillance missions around the world, track Soviet submarines everywhere across the planet. We also flew a lot of missions off the coast of Vietnam and a lot of missions in the South China Sea.

Even decades ago when I was flying missions with my squad in the South China Sea, we were concerned about the militarization of the South China Sea by China and China taking over islands that were not theirs, that maybe had been claimed by the Philippines and other nations. The Chinese were taking them over with the idea of militarizing them and ultimately making maritime trafficking--the moving of ships and aircraft through the South China Sea--more difficult.

We used to fly missions in the Vietnam war. We used to fly missions out of Vietnam. I was commissioned in 1968. By that time, we pulled a lot of land-based aircraft--B-52s, P-3s, just land-based aircraft with the Navy--we pulled them out of Vietnam, and we flew our missions out of Thailand, a big Air Force base.

We flew missions out of Taiwan, places in the southern part of the island, Tainan, which is an Air Force base in Taiwan. I had a chance be to deployed there from time to time. I got to know some of the people who lived in Taiwan--wonderful people, lovely people. Do you know what they were concerned about all those years ago? They were concerned about China coming in and taking them over, trying to take away their independence--not just militarize the South China Sea and transfer a bunch of islands into bases, if you will, for the Chinese military but actually take over a democratic country that has never been a part of China and make them do the bidding of China.

Mark my words. If Vladimir Putin is successful in prevailing in Ukraine, if he is successful, Taiwan will be next. As sure as I am standing here today, President Xi, the leader of China who says Taiwan is theirs, will hunt right into the fight. That would trigger a real- world conflict between them and us. It wouldn't be good for either of us, but we would, I think, be beholden to defend Taiwan.

Why don't we bring a halt to that idea of China getting involved and trying to come after Taiwan and having to commit our own troops? Why don't we just take care of it by making sure the people of Ukraine have the ships, the aircraft, the tanks, the missiles, and the armament they need to prevail on their own against Russia?

We wouldn't have to commit our own troops. We wouldn't have to worry about the kind of body bags that came back from Vietnam when I was serving in the Vietnam war. We would end up with a free Ukraine, and I think we would have a much better chance of making sure that the folks in Taiwan would continue to enjoy their independence as well.

I am wearing a lapel pin here that people ask me about from time to time--even today. They say: What kind of lapel pin is that? It is an American flag, and it is a Ukrainian flag as well.

A couple of days after Russia invaded Ukraine, I sent somebody over from my staff to the Ukrainian Embassy to get this lapel pin. I have worn it every day since, every day since.

And I get a lot of people--I go back and forth on the train, as my colleagues know. I live in Delaware and go back and forth on the train almost every day. It is amazing how many people I run into on the train, at the train stations, or traveling around the country. They will say: What is that that you are wearing? And when I explain it, I don't recall one person ever saying: You shouldn't wear that, or, That is a bad idea. People say: Good for you. Good for you. We ought to help them.

The Presiding Officer may recall a couple of months ago when--in fact, this year and maybe even last year--President Zelenskyy came here. Not to this Chamber, but he came into the Old Senate Chamber just down the hall. And he spoke in a closed room to Members of the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, in very emotional, very compelling language where he laid out the situation that they faced, laid out how important our support was and how grateful that they were for us being willing to stand by them, stand up for them.

And his speech was interrupted any number of times by standing ovations by Democrats and by Republicans. I happened to be sitting right in front of his podium when he was speaking, about as far away as our stenographer is standing from me today. And during the course of his speech, a couple of times he made eye contact, and I tried to give him encouragement in a sort of way. And I think I did.

But when it was over, he walked away from the podium, and I walked up to him and I shook his hand and I hugged him. I don't get to hug international leaders every day, but I hugged him and he hugged me. And I said to him, ``You are a hero.'' I said to him, ``You are a hero.'' And he reached over and touched my lapel pin, and he said to me, ``No, no. You are our heroes.'' He said, ``You are our heroes.''

Now, I just want to say, in the months that have passed since then when we have floundered, kind of waffling around and trying to figure out how we are going to continue to provide aid and support for Ukraine, and I thought--he was back a couple of months later, and I had a chance to talk to him again. And again he said, ``You are our heroes; you are our heroes,'' talking about us in this body and the House of Representatives.

And I said to my staff later that day and my colleagues later in the day: You know what--it is funny--I don't feel much like a hero.

This was a couple of months ago when he was here because we were on the verge of pulling the plug on the aid and the assistance we were going to provide for Ukraine. There was a very real chance that we could pull the plug, take away the help, and Putin and the Russians would just move in and take over. And I didn't feel like a hero with that sort of staring us in the face.

When we leave this week and go back to our districts, our States, and our homes across the country and reflect back on what we have done, what we have decided, I want to feel like a hero. I want all of us to feel like a hero and a heroine and deserve to be feeling that way.

I am a great student of World War II, and some of my colleagues are as well. I remember a time when Churchill was leading the allied world and rising and standing up and warning against the threat that Germany provided for the rest of us, urging us to be brave and be strong, be vigilant, come to the aid of Europe.

There was another guy named Chamberlain whose name is sort of thought of in terms of appeasement. Churchill: engage, defend, be strong. Chamberlain: appease. We have a chance here to be more like Churchill and less like Chamberlain. And I hope and pray, when we vote here today--maybe even tomorrow--that is exactly what we will do.

I want us to make not just the folks in Ukraine, Taiwan, and--I don't want them just to be grateful. I want the people who we serve, who elect us and sent us here--I want them to be proud of what we have done and the work that we have done on their behalf and on behalf of these other countries who need our help.

We are the beacon for democracy for the world. Our Constitution is the longest living constitution in the history of the world. It lays out how the democracy should operate; and for all these years, we have. We need to hold that to our heart, and we need to do the right thing.

The last point I would say is this: My mom was a deeply religious woman. I have shared this with some of my colleagues before. She would drag my sister and me, in the West Virginia coal-mining town in West Virginia--she would drag us to church every Sunday morning, every Sunday night, every

Wednesday night, and even on Thursday night. And then we would go home, and she would turn on the TV and we would watch Billy Graham on television. She wanted us to have a deep faith, but she really wanted us to hold dear the Golden Rule, the idea that we should treat other people the way we want to be treated.

How would we want to be treated if we were the Ukrainian people today? How would we want to be treated if we were Taiwanese people today, facing the kind of threats that they face? We would want the rest of the free world to come to their aid--not to send troops, not to send fighter pilots and all, but give them the tools that they need to take on this fight and to win it. When we do that, if we do that--and I am encouraged that we will--we will deserve the words of President Zelenskyy when he said, ``You are our hero. You are our hero.'' Let's be that hero.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to associate myself with the gentleman from California, and I thank him for his comments.

I rise today in strong opposition to the measure before us. If enacted, this measure would block Federal funding for the EPA's new plan to limit tailpipe emissions from light- and medium-duty vehicles, such as cars and pickup trucks.

Nearly every day, we see signs of a planet in crisis--wildfires ravaging our lands, polluted air filling our lungs, extreme heat gripping our communities, and much, much more. Scientists have repeatedly sounded the alarm. We are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change for the health of our planet--and there is no planet B. Instead of coming together to tackle this challenge head on and create jobs at the same time, some of our colleagues want to stop a rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions, which we know to have a substantial warming effect on our planet.

So why is it important to tackle emissions from the transportation sector?

To explain that, let's start with the age-old story about a guy named Willie Sutton--a notorious bank robber during the Great Depression. At his trial--he got arrested, and they dragged him before the court. At his trial, the judge famously asked him: Mr. Sutton, why do you rob banks? And he replied famously: Your Honor, that is where the money is.

Colleagues, we need to continue reining in emissions from the transportation sector because that happens to be where the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. economy is--at 28 percent. Let me say that again. The cars, trucks, and vans we drive each day make up the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in our country. After that, 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States comes from our powerplants, and another 23 percent comes from our manufacturing operations--think asphalt plants, think steel mills and so forth.

Combating the climate crisis requires us to use every tool in our toolbox. It is simply not possible to meet the climate goals we set without addressing emissions from the transportation sector, and this rule helps us do just that. In fact, this rule is expected to avoid over 7 billion tons of CO2 emissions. That is the equivalent of taking every coal plant in America offline for over 6 years.

In addition to planet-warming CO2, vehicle emissions also contain what is known as particulate matter. What is that? Well, particulate matter is commonly known as soot. We know this type of pollution is greatly threatening to human health. In fact, according to the EPA, this rule alone will provide $13 billion--billion with a B--in annual health benefits by preventing heart attacks, respiratory and cardiovascular illnesses, decreased lung function, and premature deaths. It will help 400,000 people with asthma to breathe easier. That is almost half the people in Delaware.

So let's be clear: This rule not only helps us drive down greenhouse gas emissions and slow climate change, it also helps us clean up the air we breathe and protect public health.

I also want to take a moment to address the myth that this rule is an EV mandate being thrust upon American consumers.

This rule would actually bolster--bolster--consumer choices when it comes to purchasing new vehicles. By giving manufacturers the flexibility to use a mixture of technologies, this rule ensures that consumers will have a wider range of vehicle choices--from advanced gasoline vehicles to hybrids, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and a whole range of battery-powered vehicles.

For years, I drove a 2001 Chrysler Town & Country minivan all over Delaware and around the country. It was lovingly known by a lot of folks in Delaware as the ``silver bullet.'' After 600,000 miles, we parted ways and I fell in love with my new vehicle, which happens to be an electric vehicle. Not only is it environmentally friendly, it is a hoot to drive. I was reminded of that just this morning on my drive in to the train station in Wilmington, DE. In fact, I have saved a lot on maintenance as well and fuel costs by switching to an EV.

Unlike what some may want you to believe, this rule doesn't force anyone to make the same purchasing decisions that I did. Instead, it gives consumers a wider range of vehicle options that are cleaner, more affordable, and, hopefully, a whole lot of fun to drive.

Let me close with this: A remarkably wide range of groups, including General Motors, Stellantis, Ford, United Auto Workers, the League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and many more, support this rule. They support this rule. It is not every day that we see this kind of coalition formed. In fact, it is rare. When we do, though, we need to pay attention to it and learn from it.

I am going to close by saying, supporting this bill and blocking the EPA's rule would be harmful to human health, to our planet, the economy, and consumers. That is why I oppose this measure, and I urge our colleagues to join me and others in opposing it as well.

I yield to the Senator from Michigan.

Madam President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia, my native State, for yielding to me. Out of the three Senators in the U.S. Senate from West Virginia, today we are all speaking on this proposal by Senator Cramer.

I rise today in opposition to S.J. Res. 61, a Congressional Review Act resolution that would overturn the Federal Highway Administration's greenhouse gas performance rule. This rule is critical to helping the United States meet our climate goals, and I want to start off by laying out the scale of the challenges we face in addressing climate change and the climate crisis.

All of us know by now that we are confronted almost daily by signs that our planet is literally on fire, and as the days and weeks pass, the urgency to act only grows stronger. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the United States just experienced the warmest winter on record--not ``one'' of the warmest winters on record but ``the'' warmest winter on record. And last year, 2023, was the world's warmest year on record--not ``one'' of the warmest years on record but ``the.'' This is not a mere coincidence but an unabated body of evidence that shows our planet continues to grow warmer and warmer.

Extreme weather is affecting communities across our Nation, from hurricanes to drought, to flooding made worse by rising sea levels.

Last year, the Environment and Public Works Committee that I am privileged to lead, along with Senator Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia, held a hearing where we heard firsthand about the negative impacts of extreme heat on our transportation systems and the punishing effects--truly punishing effects--it could have on the health of our transportation workforce.

The science is clear that greenhouse gas emissions are having a substantial effect on our changing climate.

So where do those emissions come from? Where do they come from? Well, the transportation sector in America is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Let me say that again. The transportation sector is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, accounting for nearly 30 percent of our emissions economywide. The transportation sector is the single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. After that, another 28 percent comes from our powerplants generating electricity, and yet another 25 percent comes from our manufacturing operations, like cement plants and like steel mills. This means that the cars, the trucks, the buses driven on our highways every day are a major source of the emissions that are warming this planet that we call home.

That is why the Federal Highway Administration's greenhouse gas performance rule is so important and must be upheld by Congress. It is simply not possible to meet our climate goals without addressing emissions from the transportation sector.

For my colleagues who might not be familiar with the Federal Highway Administration's performance measure, I would like to take a couple of minutes to talk about what the rule actually does as well as what it does not do.

First, the rule provides a framework for States and metropolitan planning organizations to measure the amount of greenhouse gas emissions generated by vehicles on our Nation's highways. This rule does so by using longstanding authorities under the National Highway Performance Program, which have existed in statutes since 2012.

Under the National Highway Performance Program, the Federal Highway Administration can enact measures to assess the performance of our Nation's highways, including for environmental sustainability.

The Federal Highway Administration has already enacted performance measures in other areas, including safety and congestion.

During negotiations on the bipartisan infrastructure law, some of us wanted to require the Federal Highway Administration to set a greenhouse gas performance measure. That is what we wanted to do. We couldn't get bipartisan agreement to require a greenhouse gas performance measure. The Federal Highway Administration used the discretionary authority it has had since 2012--for 12 years--to set performance measures relating to the environmental sustainability of our highways.

In addition to measuring emissions, States must also establish targets for reducing those emissions over time. However, the rule does not take a one-size-fits all approach. Instead, it gives each State-- each State--the flexibility to set its own reduction target. Let me say that again. The rule does not take a one-size-fits-all approach. Instead, it gives each State the flexibility to set its own reduction target.

It is also important that our colleagues understand that the greenhouse gas rule does not impose any penalties on States that, for whatever reason, are unable to meet their targets that they have set-- not that someone else has set; that they have set. The rule does not require States to transfer highway funding to other modes of transportation or to pay a financial cost if their emissions do not decline in accordance with that State's targets.

That means that under this rule, none of our colleagues' States will see a reduction in the highway funding or any change in the way that highway funds are administered in their States. That bears repeating. This means that under this rule, none of our colleagues' States will see a reduction in their highway funding or any change in the way that highway funds are administered in their States.

In fact, Congress specifically authorized funding the bipartisan infrastructure law to help States meet their emission targets. We established a new Carbon Reduction Formula Program that provides funding to every State for projects that reduce emissions from transportation.

We also provide $7.5 billion--billion with a ``b''--in the bipartisan infrastructure law to build out a national network of electric vehicle charging stations.

Our States are far from being punished. In fact, they have been provided with historic amounts of funding to address climate change.

In closing, let me just say that I believe we have an important choice to make here: Are we going to continue to ignore the significant impact that greenhouse gas emissions are having on our planet or are we going to take reasonable steps, as the Federal Highway Administration has done with this rulemaking, to address the problem head-on?

I hope that our colleagues will join me and others in opposing this Congressional Review Act resolution.

Let me just close with this for another minute, if I could. We have some young peopling sitting up here. They are pages. We call them pages. They are nominated by Senators from all over the country-- Democratic Senators, Republican Senators. They come here to go to school. They haven't graduated from high school yet. They come here to pick up their schoolwork, usually in high school, and maybe stay for 1 year, 1 academic year, and eventually go back home, finish their education, and go on to do amazing things. They are just wonderful young people. I am very proud of them--the ones from Delaware and every other State as well.

They have a bright future. They have a bright future. There are also some incredibly scary threats to that future. One of those is that we live on a planet that is growing hotter, growing hotter, and growing hotter. The question is, Are we going to do anything about it? We are trying very hard to do that.

The good news is, we can do something about it, turn it around, and reverse it in ways that create jobs and economic opportunity. We have adopted those in legislation, in the Inflation Reduction Act, in the bipartisan transportation bill, and the treaty called the Kigali treaty. We have done a lot. The key is not just doing those things but continuing to do those things--continue to do those things.

With that, I hope that our colleagues will join me in opposing this Congressional Review Act resolution.

I say this as one who oftentimes works with folks--both my colleagues from West Virginia--on all kinds of issues. This is just one where we don't see eye to eye. My hope is that our colleagues from both sides of the aisle will vote no.

I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for 10 minutes.

My colleague John Barrasso has just spoken. He and I used to lead the Environment and Public Works Committee. We worked together over the years on a lot of issues. He is good at finding the middle in a bunch of those and I think I am, too, and so is our Presiding Officer.

I want to follow up on the issue of electric vehicles. The reason why there is a strong interest in this country and around the world in electric vehicles is because they don't put greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The reason why we are concerned about greenhouse gases coming out of fossil fuel vehicles--it is something like 30 percent of the greenhouse gases in this country being produced by our mobile fleet, our cars, our trucks, our vans--almost all of them are gas- and diesel-driven.

We are seeing a real tick up in the last 3 or 4 years in electric vehicles. There is a lot of interest right now in a combination-- hybrids--where you run for a while--vehicles run for a while on battery and for a while some of these on other sources of fuel. I think we need both of those.

The reason, again, why it is important for us to do something real with respect to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, about 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions come from the cars, trucks, and vans we drive--about 30 percent. About another 25 percent comes from the powerplants--coal-fired plants, natural gas-fired plants. That creates the electricity we use in our businesses and our homes. Maybe another 20 percent of our greenhouse gases in this country come from manufacturing plants--steel mills, asphalt plants, that kind of thing.

Should we be concerned about this? Yes. Last year was the hottest year on record on our planet--hottest year. It was the hottest year in the United States, and the expectation is that it is going to continue to worsen as time goes by.

For those of us who live in the coastal communities, there is a great concern in Delaware and all up and down the east coast, gulf coast, and Pacific coast about sea level rise. We see threats to people's homes, their businesses, their jobs. So there is a real incentive to do something about that as well.

One of the things Senator Barrasso and I and John Neely Kennedy, the Senator from Louisiana, have worked on before is one of the major sources of carbon emissions, which, as I mentioned, is our mobile fleet. But another one comes from, believe it or not, refrigerants that are in the air-conditioners, the freezers--the coolants that we have used--something called HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. There is a need to actually phase those down.

We have new substances that can be used as a refrigerant to address the concerns that we have with HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons.

The two colleagues I just mentioned, we all worked together toward legislation--a treaty called Kigali--the last couple of years to adopt a stepdown plan over 15 years so we reduce about 85 percent of our use of those HFCs.

Why am I interested in HFCs? In terms of the threat they pose to us with respect to climate change, they are 1,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. Think about that. HFCs are 1,000 times more potent. That is why we are concerned about doing something, and we are.

Methane. We have way too much methane in our air. And I worked a couple of years ago with my colleague Joe Manchin from West Virginia and others from EPA to come up with a methane emissions reduction program, which is now being implemented.

Why do we care about methane emissions? They are about 85, 90 times more potent than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate change.

There used to be, oh gosh, a criminal. I am trying to think of what his name was. He was up in New York State back during the Depression. He used to rob banks. He used to rob banks. The Presiding Officer may remember this story. He used to rob banks--a lot of them. He finally got caught and was

arrested, put on trial. He came before the judge and the judge said to him: Why do you rob banks? He said: Your honor, that is where the money is.

The reason why we go after hydrofluorocarbons, the reason we go after methane and auto emissions is that is where the emissions are. They pose a great threat to our planet.

The young people sitting down here to the right of our Presiding Officer today, they look young, and they are probably all about 15, 16, 17 years old. They are pages. They are from all over the planet. I want to make sure, at the end of the day, they have a planet to grow up on. I want to make sure they will have families of their own and their children and grandchildren will have a planet to grow up on and grow old on. I also want to make sure they have jobs to support themselves and their families.

One of the untold stories about the work that we are doing to reduce these greenhouse gas emissions is we can create jobs while doing that. We can create a lot of jobs in terms of building vehicles, cars, trucks, and vans. We put people to work, believe it or not, using hydrogen. This is something that is especially a bright future in our country.

People are going to hear a lot in the days to come--weeks to come-- something called hydrogen hubs. We could actually use hydrogen to fuel airplanes. We could use hydrogen to fuel buses. We put out a lot of emissions. We could use hydrogen to fuel large trucks--all of that. We could use hydrogen to create electricity in powerplants.

The question is, Are we doing that? We are. We are doing it in a way that creates jobs--a whole lot of jobs. The idea that if we want to reduce emissions, harmful emissions, we will cripple the economy--that is not really true. We can have both. It is like having your cake and eating it too; in this case, having the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating a whole lot of jobs and putting people to work.

One more word on hydrogen hubs. The Presiding Officer and I and others have worked on this for a while. The administration has put out some guidance from the Treasury Department on the use of hydrogen to help reduce emissions. As it turns out, I studied economics in school. I got here later on. I spent a lot of time in the Navy, and I know a thing or two about nuclear power. You hear a lot about nuclear power. There is a process called electrolysis where we can use electricity created by nuclear power, which puts out no emissions--no harmful emissions. And there is electricity created by hydro. In Maine, where the Presiding Officer is from, they have a fair amount of electricity that is produced by hydroelectric power. I learned just several years ago that there is a process called electrolysis that uses electricity that comes from nuclear powerplants and electricity that comes from hydroelectric plants and puts out no emissions. And we can use that electricity in conjunction with water, H2O, in a way that separates the ``H''--the hydrogen--from the oxygen, and we can harness that hydrogen and use it in a lot of ways that would enable us, as I have just spoken, to reduce harmful, harmful emissions. And we have got to be smart enough to do that.

Janet Yellen, the Secretary of the Treasury, was before our committee today, before the Finance Committee. I found it a good exchange, with respect to the Treasury Department. They are in the process of writing guidance. Sort of like when we pass a law, the Federal Agency writes a rule or regulation to say what the law is all about now. The folks over at the Treasury Department are trying to write the guidance, if you will. They help guide us as we move to adopt hydrogen more completely. And through the process of electrolysis, we can create it.

So it is acknowledged that we sort of have our differences. Those of us in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, are anxious to make sure we don't leave the opportunity to create hydrogen through electrolysis, using nuclear energy and using the hydropower. And we had a very good exchange, and she did express an openness and a willingness to hear us out and maybe try to find the middle in ways that create jobs, in ways that help preserve this planet so that someday these young pages, when they are old pages and they have children of their own, they will have a planet that they can be proud of and they can live on.

One of my favorite international leaders is the President of France, a guy named Macron. A couple weeks ago, our President gave the State of the Union Address. I thought he gave a really good one. But about 2, 3, maybe 4 years ago, we had another leader who spoke to a joint session of the House and Senate in the House Chamber, and it was the President of France, a fellow named Macron, who was actually a leader--I think a global leader--on climate change and how to deal with that.

And one of the reasons he is interested in this is, the last time I saw and I noticed when they had the Tour de France--I don't know if any of our young people ride bicycles, but the Tour de France is a great bicycle race. About a year or 2 years ago, when they had the Tour de France, they had to call it off in different parts. They couldn't complete the race because the pavement that they were riding their bikes on was melting. It was melting.

This stuff is real. We are not making it up. And the question is: What are we going to do about it? What are we going to do about it in ways that put people to work, keep people working? We can do that.

I drive an EV. For many, many years, I drove a 2001 Chrysler Town and Country minivan for, like, 20 years, and I had 600,000 miles on it. And my wife says I am cheap, and I wouldn't buy a new car. Finally, I did, and I bought an electric vehicle, and I have had it for a couple of years now. And not only do I feel good about it--just recharge this in our garage. We have a place to charge it. And there are other places, these Wawa convenience stores all up and down the east coast. Wawas have charging stations all over the Atlantic coast. Sometimes we use those.

But the thing that is especially attractive about the vehicle that we drive--that I drive--is frankly the maintenance costs are de minimis. It is amazing. We have had it 2 years and spent almost nothing on maintenance costs.

The other thing is they are fun. And I remember when I was a kid, the age of these guys, how much fun it was to get my learner's permit and later on a driver's license and to be able to drive and be on my own. And I feel the same sense of joy in driving today because of what we have with the EV.

So with that having been said, I will close with comments about John Barrasso. I think the world of John; he knows that. And I always look for ways to work with him. He is a strong advocate for nuclear energy, and my hope is that, although there are some things we are going to disagree on, we can agree on something called the ADVANCE Act.

The ADVANCE Act, which has come out of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is sort of the next generation of nuclear powerplants, and nuclear power can be used for a lot of good use, good purposes. We always have to do it in a way that is safe. You always want to make sure that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has the resources that they need to do their jobs, to keep us safe so we can have safe nuclear power.

I am a Navy guy. I spent a lot of years in the Navy in Alaska, before serving in the U.S. Senate, and I used to fly P-3 aircraft missions. We used to fly in and out of the Brunswick Naval Air Station, up in Maine, when the Presiding Officer was Governor of Maine.

But one of the things that Senator Barrasso and I agree on is the need for more nuclear, and we have an opportunity to move forward on small nuclear reactors. And they are safe and provide the electricity that we need in a lot of different ways. And my hope is that we cannot just talk about it to the folks that agree to disagree, but always look for ways to agree to help save our planet and help create a lot of jobs for those who live here.

With that, I yield back. I see our colleague from Texas, Senator Cornyn, has come to the floor, who is the ranking member of the Trade Subcommittee of the Finance Committee, which I am privileged to chair.

I am going to pause for a moment and see if he is ready to take the floor before I yield.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, before I address recycling and composting, I just want to say something with respect and affection to my friend from Texas.

About a month ago, Democrats and Republicans joined together here on this floor to pass bipartisan legislation to provide for better--much better--security at the border and to make sure that folks from other countries who have a desire to work, the ability to work, are not a threat to our safety or security--that they could be provided an opportunity to help make this a better country.

It was a bipartisan vote, Democrats and Republicans. So I just want to commend the Republicans who joined the Democrats in voting for it. The legislation has died in the House, at least for now, and my hope is that the House will see fit to join us in the Senate to pass commonsense, much needed border security legislation.

Mr. President, having said that, I came here today to talk about the passage in the Senate earlier this week of the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act and the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023--two pieces of bipartisan legislation that, if enacted, will improve our Nation's recycling and our Nation's composting systems.

As a number of our colleagues know, I care a lot about recycling, and I care a lot about composting. I have ever since I was a kid. In fact, I think in our home in Wilmington, DE, we have recycled everything in recent years, from a dehumidifier in our basement to a Ford Explorer out in our driveway. We recycle a whole lot more. We do it every week. I know a lot of other folks in our neighborhood and a lot of other folks in our State do as well. But in our country, we can always do everything better. We can always do things better when we need to.

Through my time in the U.S. Senate, I have looked for and I have found many opportunities for bipartisan support of policies that boost recycling and that boost composting. As my colleagues on this floor have heard me say many, many times, bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. I believe that with every fiber of my being.

To that end, earlier this Congress, Senator Capito, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with Senator John Boozman from Arkansas and I, worked to advance bipartisan legislation through our committee, through the Committee on Environment and Public Works, that would strengthen our Nation's recycling, composting, and sustainability efforts.

Moreover, we know that recycling is a win-win. Why do I say that? It not only benefits our environment, but it also creates economic opportunity. It creates a lot of jobs, a whole lot of jobs, not just in Delaware but in every State across the country.

When enacted, the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act and the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023 will address several of the challenges that America's recycling efforts currently face, including the lack of good data, including limited access to recycling programs in many parts--too many parts--of our country.

To increase the amount of high-quality data available on recycling efforts across America, Senator Boozman and I developed legislation called the Recycling and Composting Accountability Act. Our bill would improve the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to gather data on this Nation's recycling systems and explore opportunities for implementing a national composting strategy.

Some people might say: What is composting, and why is that important? Well, I am excited about the idea of a national composting strategy because implementing such a strategy will help us reduce food waste, which is responsible for over half--that is right--over half of our planet-warming methane emissions that emanate from landfills.

I will say that again. I am excited about the idea of national composting strategy. Why? Because implementing such a strategy will help us reduce food waste. Food waste is responsible for over half-- that is right--over half of our planet-warming methane emissions that emanate from landfills. To increase access to recycling programs, Senator Capito, Senator Boozman, and I introduced the Recycling Infrastructure and Accessibility Act of 2023. Why did we do that? To create a pilot program at EPA to help expand recycling services in underserved areas.

Many Americans in rural and underserved communities want to recycle and they want to compost, but they are unable to do so because they live in areas that lack the necessary recycling infrastructure, including curbside pickup or community collection centers.

In comparison to our neighbors, how are we doing? I have a friend, and I asked him how he is doing. He said: Compared to what?

Well, why don't we compare ourselves to Canada and maybe Germany? Well, compared to Canada, we have a lot of work to do. For example, British Columbia, our neighbors to the north, up there, they are currently recycling 86 percent of their residential waste--86 percent. Across the pond over in Germany, they are recycling almost half--48 percent, to be exact--of their waste. Yes, 48 percent. I wish I could say we are doing as well, but unfortunately, today in America, our national recycling rate is not even a third but just under that--32 percent. We can do better than that. We have to do better than that.

These two bills will help us to improve our recycling efforts to meet the goal set by the EPA to increase the U.S. recycling efforts--bring it up to 50 percent by the year 2030.

I think people, given a choice, would like to recycle. They would like to compost. We have to make it easy for them to do so.

Both of the bills that I have mentioned are the result of true collaboration and reflect a bipartisan commitment to exploring and addressing our Nation's recycling and composting challenges and opportunities.

We have a moral duty to leave behind a cleaner, healthier planet for future generations, and that is a belief I know is shared by most Americans.

Now that the Senate has passed both of these bills, I welcome all of our House colleagues to join us in this effort.

I want to say to the Presiding Officer, our colleague from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, a member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works--I want to thank him for being part of the effort that has enabled us to bring this legislation to the floor, I believe without opposition and with total, bipartisan support of Democrat and Republican Members.

Hopefully, we will be able to convince our friends over in the House that we come up with some pretty good ideas over here in the Senate from time to time, and these are a couple of them.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I have five requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority Leaders.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the following members of my staff be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress: Natasha Kieval, Cassandra Worthington, Nicole Comisky, and Ryan Smith.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 84, which was received from the House and I understand is at the desk.

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