Floor Statements

Mr. President, unfortunately, I must rise in opposition to Braun amendment 833 this evening. On its face, this amendment would prohibit the EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality from issuing any regulation or guidance that would ban oil and gas fracking.

President Biden has stated repeatedly that he does not support a blanket ban on fracking. He has said that we should capture the methane that emanates from fracking, not ban the practice all together.

Let me give you his exact words. This is Joe Biden's words: ``Let me be clear, and I know this always comes up, we're not going to ban fracking.''

The amendment, as written, before us appears to go beyond just prohibiting EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality from issuing regs to ban oil and gas fracking. The effect here would actually go beyond that and prevent the Federal Government from regulating emissions of methane and air toxics that are related to fracking.

I encourage my colleagues to not vote for this hasty and unnecessary amendment. Methane is 85 times more dangerous than carbon dioxide. We should be controlling it, not allowing it to go up into the air.

Vote on Amendment No. 833

Mr. President, I would note an irony here: Native of West Virginia offering an amendment, objected to by a native of West Virginia, presided by a native of West Virginia.

The Navigable Waters Protection Rule fails to provide consistent, clear, and functional categories and exclusions of jurisdictional water that are asserted by this amendment.

The rule also fails to provide critical headwaters and wetlands from pollution. That is jeopardizing the source of drinking water for over 100 million Americans. The Trump rule's failure to protect headwaters and wetlands will ensure the transport of pollution downstream, contaminating water resources, compromising ecosystem health, and enforcing downstream communities to spend unavailable funds to upgrade water treatment facilities.

And, finally, this amendment would have the effects of grading water quality, thus forcing new burdens on downstream, disadvantaged communities and forcing cities and towns to find resources long lost to the battle against COVID to ensure clean drinking water for their citizens.

Reluctantly, I must urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Vote on Amendment No. 655

Madam President, I have the honor of serving on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--a committee you serve on--which oversees, as you know, the Department of Homeland Security since the committee was first formed.

Almost two decades later, I remain convinced that the nominees we confirm to lead that Department must possess sound judgment, integrity, relevant experience, boundless energy, and the leadership skills that will enable them to take on some of the most daunting challenges that we face today as a nation.

The Department of Homeland Security is a Department with a budget of over $50 billion and a staff of over 240,000 men and women. Its Agencies protect our country from ever-evolving domestic and foreign threats; they respond to natural disasters; and they help to secure our critical infrastructure.

Unfortunately, in recent years, the senior leadership ranks of this Department have come to remind many of us as something akin to executive branch Swiss cheese, with critical positions remaining vacant for far too long or without Senate confirmation at all. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has been without a Senate-confirmed Secretary for 21 months. Think about that--21 months. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of work to be done from the clear and present threat of domestic terrorism to responding to the SolarWinds cyber breach to helping distribute the COVID vaccine.

Now, more than ever, it is crucial for this important Department to be led by men and women who have been vetted and confirmed by Members of this body. The American people deserve a capable leader at the helm of this Department, and I believe that leader is Alejandro Mayorkas.

Ali represents the best of America. Born in Havana, Cuba, Ali knows firsthand what it is like for a family to flee its native land and come to the United States in search of refuge. He is a man of integrity and a person of principle who possesses a truly, truly remarkable work ethic. What is more, he may well be the most qualified nominee we have ever been asked to consider to lead the Department of Homeland Security.

He has previously served admirably as its Deputy Secretary for nearly 4 years, and before that as the head of DHS's largest Agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As Director of this Agency, he worked to combat immigration fraud. He directed and implemented the DACA Program to protect hundreds of thousands of Dreamers and much more.

As Deputy Secretary, he led the Department's successful Unity of Effort initiative to improve morale in an Agency which previously had the lowest morale of any large Agency in our Federal Government. In fact, the Department that reported the greatest improvement in morale in the final year of the Obama administration was the Department of Homeland Security, in large part, due to Ali's leadership and that of former Secretary Jeh Johnson.

As Deputy Secretary, Mr. Mayorkas also shepherded through Congress cyber security legislation to enable the Department of Homeland Security to better protect our dot-gov and private sector networks. I think he may have also had something to do with reining in the Ebola plague.

Those who know Ali well will tell you that he is no ideologue. He has no partisan agenda. Rather, he is a thoughtful, policy-minded public servant who has spent much of his career improving the Department of Homeland Security so that the men and women who serve there can better protect our homeland.

We have seen that he is willing to work with Democrats, Republicans, and their staffs to get things done. That is one of the many reasons that five former Secretaries of Homeland Security, Democratic and Republican alike, have encouraged us to confirm him swiftly.

I know that Ali can do this job. He has already demonstrated that. And I believe that many of our colleagues here today know it as well. After all, Ali Mayorkas has been confirmed three times in the past, including once as U.S. attorney for the Central District of Columbia.

Having said that, though, some of our Republican colleagues are attempting now to use a 2013 IG investigation as a cudgel against his nomination. As it turns out, we have seen this movie before. I should note that a number of those colleagues were not serving in Congress at that time in 2013 and most were not serving on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when we considered Ali's nomination that year to serve as Deputy Secretary.

I was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee at that time. In fact, I led the fight to confirm him. It was the toughest fight I have had in 20 years here. It is one thing to disagree with the nominee politically, but to continue to question Ali's dedication and integrity on the basis of an IG report, as some of our Republican colleagues have done, flies in the face of available evidence, including his decades of public service. At a time when our Nation faces so many crises, we cannot afford less than full support for this nominee.

So I want to take a few minutes today to set the record straight, if I can. Here are the facts.

In 2013, an IG investigation into Ali Mayorkas's oversight of a program within U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, known as the EB-5 Program, was conducted in a highly irregular manner, including through false leaks to the media literally on the eve of his confirmation hearing. As a result of the IG's public leaks and his failure to complete a report before the close of Congress, Ali was denied a chance to have any concerns fully litigated ahead of his confirmation in the Senate in 2013.

Ultimately, the IG who initiated the investigation stepped down later that year amid bipartisan calls for his resignation. Last year, that same former IG was charged by the Department of Justice with 16 counts of fraud--16 counts of fraud

Following Ali's confirmation, my staff and I worked to ensure that the subsequent IG completed the report into any allegations. In 2015, that new IG, John Roth, produced a report building on the work of the 2013 investigation. The report found no evidence of wrongdoing by Ali. None. What it did suggest, however, was that some of his actions as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may have created the ``appearance of favoritism.''

In particular, it asserted that Ali met with a number of well- connected individuals over time regarding their concerns over the EB-5 Investor Visa Program. After Ali joined the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as its Director in 2009, he came to the conclusion that this program was not well run. He was not alone in this conclusion. Ali has testified that as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, he received more complaints from Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, regarding the EB-5 Program than he did about any other program.

In response to these bipartisan concerns, as Director of the Agency, Ali did what, in my opinion, many of us would expect an Agency head to do. He rolled up his sleeves, and he worked with his employees to gain an understanding of how the program was being run and to find out how they might make it run better. He directed systemic changes that included improving management and administration of the program in order to reduce favoritism and to combat fraud. He also proposed reforms of the program to Congress in an effort to prevent future abuses--reforms which, unfortunately, were not pursued by Congress--our fault, not his.

And yes, as Director, he set a precedent for getting back to Members of Congress quickly in response to their inquiries, even if the answers his Agency came up with was ultimately not what they wanted to hear.

Completing the 2015 IG report was important to clear Ali of any wrongdoing. But these findings and Ali's actions have been mischaracterized by some of our colleagues who assert that he showed favoritism by reaching out personally to the staff of former Senator Harry Reid over an EB-5-related issue they had raised on behalf of a constituent.

As it turns out, though, the report is clear. Ali Mayorkas did reach out to that staff--not to deliver preferential treatment but, rather, to let the staff know that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would not be able to accommodate the request of that staff and their Senator. And why? If responsiveness to inquiries by Members of Congress and their staff, regardless of whether the response is favorable or not, is a problem for my colleagues--any of my colleagues--that is news to me.

Let me make one more point, if I may. As someone who knows Ali and has known him for years--knows his family, knows his work, knows his ethic--I believe the 2015 IG report was missing some needed context. Let me try to provide it

Fortunately, though, Ali provided it in a 32-page response. The response was almost as long as the IG report itself. Among other things, it describes how he met not just with Democratic Members but with a number of our Republican colleagues to address issues important to them, including international adoption and fighting fraud in our immigration programs. Following those meetings, just as with the EB-5 Program, Ali took appropriate steps to make improvements based on feedback from his constituents. That is what leaders should do.

Those examples and others included right there in the 2015 IG report serve to further illustrate Ali's commitment to doing what he thought was right, to improving the Department by carrying out the law without fear or favor, and by responding promptly and fully to inquiries from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

If Ali Mayorkas is confirmed today, I am hopeful that many of our colleagues and our staffs will have a chance in the years to come to work with him and his team at the Department of Homeland Security and witness for themselves the kind of leader he truly is. We are fortunate that an individual as well prepared and qualified as Alejandro Mayorkas may soon have the opportunity to lead the Department through the many crises and challenges it faces and which our country faces today.

But you don't have to take my word for it. The late Tom Coburn, a dear friend of mine and former colleague of many of us, led the fight against Ali's confirmation in 2013, when he had been nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. Tom was then the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and I was serving as its chairman. Tom, sadly, is deceased. We lost a good man, a really good man, a couple of years ago.

Tom's staff director of the committee, at the time, was a very capable gentleman. His name is Keith Ashdown. I think it is important to note that last week, Keith sent a letter to our committee. In it, he wrote of his strong support today of Ali's nomination to serve as Secretary of DHS.

Mr. Ashdown wrote these words. He said:

I first came to know Mayorkas when I was the Republican

staff director of this committee [the Homeland Security

committee]. At that time, I was working to block his

nomination to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Department of

Homeland Security.

He went on to say:

With the benefit of hindsight, I am glad my efforts to

block his nomination were ultimately unsuccessful.

How often do you hear that? Mr. Ashdown went on to write:

As Deputy Secretary, Mayorkas worked in a bipartisan manner

to respond to the Committee's requests and concerns.

He added:

Having been on the other side of this battle, I understand

the importance of vetting a [nomination] thoroughly. But no

one has been vetted more than has Ali Mayorkas.

Mr. Ashton concluded with these words. He said:

I urge the [United States] Senate to expeditiously confirm

Ali Mayorkas as [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary

without delay.

Without delay.

Signed:

Sincerely, Keith Ashdown.

Let me close today, by saying that I am grateful, and I know that the Mayorkas family is grateful as well, to Keith Ashdown and to the Republican Senators who have broken ranks in committee and on the floor in last week's cloture vote, who have taken the time to fully consider this nomination, and who now support it. We are grateful to you. I sincerely hope that more of our colleagues will join them and us today.

I would say to my colleagues, I don't stake my reputation on a lot of people, but I am more than willing to stake it on Ali Mayorkas, just as I have three times before in this same Chamber. If you are undecided today, colleagues, I hope you will join me this time. Ali Mayorkas will make us and this country proud. In fact, I believe, he already has.

While we are waiting for folks to come onto the floor, I just want to explain to people who ask: What is this EB-5 Program? It is a program that is designed to bring foreign capital into this country to help build businesses and provide jobs in return for the ability to come to this country and eventually have legal residency here. That is what it is about.

I want to say everything I do, I know I can do better. Every program that we have, even the ones that I helped to create, we can make them better. The EB-5 Program, which is a bipartisan program that was created, I think, under partnership with Ted Kennedy and Senator Chuck Grassley, if I am not mistaken, wasn't a perfect program, and it wasn't administered in a perfect manner either.

The Constitution of our country has its Preamble, as we all know. It starts off with these words: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.'' That is what it says: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.''

That includes writing more perfect legislation and creating more perfect programs. When we find that they are not and that they are flawed, and that maybe some of the people who are administering them are ill-equipped with their skills and technology and backgrounds to oversee those programs, we have to make some changes. To those people whose feelings were hurt and those people who maybe had to find a different path in their careers, I reach out to you with a heavy heart.

But I want to close by saying: Ali Mayorkas is a good man. He is a great nominee. He served us before, and he will do it again. Let's give him our votes.

Mr. President, ``free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.''

Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, rejecting President Trump's legal challenges to the Pennsylvania election--a judge who, I might add, was a longtime member of the conservative Federalist Society and was nominated to the bench by President Trump.

Mr. President, the 2020 presidential election was hard-fought, but the American people spoke clearly and decisively: 81.2 million votes for Joe Biden, 74.2 million votes for Donald Trump, 51.3 percent of the vote for Joe Biden, 46.8 percent of the vote for Donald Trump, 306 electoral college votes for Joe Biden, 232 electoral college votes for Donald Trump.

Accepting the outcome of an election can be difficult when our political party doesn't win, but calling an election unfair does not make it so.

More than 60 Federal and State courts, involving more than 90 judges, many of whom were nominated by Republican Presidents, including President Trump, are all in agreement. No evidence of widespread fraud, wrongdoing, or other irregularities have been uncovered during the 2020 election.

Unfortunately, some of our colleagues today ask us to do the same thing Donald Trump asked of the secretary of state of Georgia: to overturn the results of the 2020 election without specific allegations and without proof. Our colleagues are asking us not to abide by the will of the people but to bend to the will of one man, Donald Trump.

In 1787, delegates from 13 States convened in Philadelphia to debate the future of our country. Our Founders disagreed on many things, but they did agree that they didn't want a King, and they set up an intricate system of checks and balances to ensure that we would never have an all-powerful King. That system of checks and balances is being pushed to a dangerous limit here today, but it will prevail.

Here are just some of the claims Donald Trump and his legal team have made and that our colleagues lend credence to today: that Venezuela, Cuba, and China rigged our country's voting machines in favor of Joe Biden; that dead people voted in this election and they only voted for Joe Biden; and that poll watchers and election observers--who risked their lives during this pandemic to uphold the integrity of our elections--stuffed ballot boxes with Biden votes and shredded Trump votes. Not one--let me repeat--not one of these things is true. There is no evidence to back up these ridiculous claims.

Many of these absurd claims from Donald Trump and his legal team are nothing more than conspiracy theories circulating online. This misinformation and dangerous rhetoric from the President and his allies, including calls for violence, have polluted our discourse and imperiled our peaceful transition of power. And when our colleagues show indifference or outright support for these unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories, they lead our nation and our Constitution down a dangerous path. We all swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution--not our political party, and certainly not any individual candidate.

Colleagues, for the safety of our citizens and our Republic, we must lead by example and turn the temperature down. It was a hard-fought campaign, but the campaign is over, the votes have been counted, the count has been certified in all 50 States, and in 2 weeks, on January 20th, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn-in as President and Vice-President of the United States.

We have serious and urgent challenges that will require working with our new President and Vice President and with one another, including making sure hundreds of millions of Americans can be vaccinated, getting our kids back to school, and getting their parents back to work, just to name a few.

It is time to stop trying to overturn the will of the people and get back to working on their behalf.

President Lincoln observed at the end of the Gettysburg Address that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Even in the midst of a Civil War, President Lincoln put his unwavering faith in ``the people'' to chart our Nation's course. We would be wise to remember Lincoln's words in this moment. We are not a government of Trump, by Trump, and for Trump. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And the people have spoken. Our only job today is to listen to them.

Mr. President, ``Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges on fairness are serious.'' I think we will all agree. ``But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then [they require] proof. We have neither here.''

Those are not my words. Those are the words of a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejecting President Trump's legal challenges to the Pennsylvania election. I might add, a judge who was a longtime member of the conservative Federalist Society and was nominated to the bench by none other than Donald Trump.

The 2020 Presidential election was hard-fought--we will all agree. But the American people spoke clearly, and they spoke decisively: 81.2 million voters voted for Joe Biden--81.2; 74.2 million voted for Donald Trump; 51.3 percent of the vote went for Joe Biden; 46.8 percent of the vote was for Donald Trump; 306 electoral college votes for Joe Biden; 232 electoral college votes for Donald Trump. Four years earlier, Donald Trump referred to that kind of outcome as a ``landslide'' for him, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.

But accepting the outcome of the election can be difficult when our political party doesn't win. We have all felt that before. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. More than 60 Federal and State courts involving more than 90 judges--many of whom were nominated by Republican Presidents, including Donald Trump--are all in agreement. That is pretty amazing, isn't it? All in agreement. No evidence of widespread fraud, wrongdoing, or other irregularities have been uncovered during the 2020 election. That is a victory for democracy, for our democracy.

Unfortunately, some of our colleagues today ask us to do the same thing that Donald Trump asked of the secretary of state for the State of Georgia--to overturn the results of the 2020 election without specific allegations and, more importantly, without any proof. Our colleagues are asking us not to abide by the will of the people but to bend to the will of one man--one man--Donald Trump.

In 1787, delegates from the Thirteen Colonies convened in Philadelphia to debate the future of what would become the United States of America. Our Founders disagreed on a lot of things, but, you know, they all agreed on one thing for sure: They did not want a King; they did not want a Monarch. Many of them had been there, done that. They didn't want to see it and feel it again, and they set up this intricate system of checks and balances to ensure that we would never have that all-powerful King in this country.

That system of checks and balances is being pushed to a dangerous limit here today, but that system will prevail--along with it, our democracy.

Here are just some of the claims Donald Trump and his legal team have made and that our colleagues lend credence to here today: that Venezuela, Cuba, and China rigged our country's voting machines in favor of Joe Biden; that dead people voted in this election, and they only voted for Joe Biden; that poll watchers and election observers who risked their lives during this pandemic to uphold the integrity of our elections stuffed ballot boxes with Biden votes, and then they shredded Trump votes.

Not one--let me repeat--not one of these things is true. There is no evidence--no evidence--to back up these ridiculous claims. Many of these absurd claims from Donald Trump and his legal team are nothing more than conspiracy theories circuiting online.

This misinformation and dangerous rhetoric from the President and his allies--including calls for violence--have

polluted our discourse and imperiled our peaceful transfer of power.

When our colleagues show indifference to outright support for these unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories, they lead our Nation and our Constitution down a dangerous, dangerous path.

All of us who serve here swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution. I swore that same oath as a naval flight officer many times and as midshipman before that. But all of us here have sworn to support and defend our Constitution, not our political party and certainly not any individual candidate.

Colleagues, for the safety of our citizens and our Republic, we must lead by example. We must turn the temperature down. It was a hard- fought campaign, but the campaign is over. The votes have been counted. The count has been certified in all 50 States.

In 2 weeks, on January 20, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn in as President and Vice President of the United States, as they should be. We have serious and urgent challenges that will require working together with our new President and new Vice President, with one another in this Chamber--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and with our colleagues over in the House of Representatives.

What is on our ``to do'' list?

We can start with making sure that hundreds of millions of Americans get vaccinated--that we get off the dime and start vaccinating. We vaccinated 4 million people last month. We were supposed to have vaccinated 20 million. How are we ever going to get to 250 million at this rate?

What else is on our ``to do'' list?

We are getting our kids back to school. We have kids who are unable to get on the internet, who are unable to participate in their classes, and who may not have any adult supervision at home. They are struggling, and they are falling even further behind. We need to do something to help them.

What else is on our ``to do'' list?--getting their parents back to work, just to name a few things. Think of all of the millions of people who have lost jobs and don't have skills anymore to fill the jobs that are needed. They need our help. They need to be retooled and retrained. It is time to stop overturning the will of the people. Let's get back to working on their behalf.

Abraham Lincoln has been quoted a couple of times here tonight, but he observed at the end of the Gettysburg Address that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Even in the midst of a civil war, President Lincoln put his unwavering faith in the people to chart our Nation's course. We would be wise to remember Lincoln's words at this moment, at this special moment, in our Nation's history.

We are not a government of Trump, by Trump, and for Trump. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people have spoken. The people have spoken. Our job here today is to listen to them. I intend to do that. I trust that my colleagues will join me in doing that as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition today to the nomination of Peter Wright to serve as the Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management.

I take little joy in opposing the nomination but do so for three reasons. Before I say those three reasons--I stood on this floor right up until the end of the last Congress, trying to get Peter Wright confirmed with a unanimous consent approach, and we failed at the very end.

The irony of it is, having stood here and tried to get him confirmed at the end of the last Congress and today being in a position in which I am asking for us to postpone, at least for today, his nomination-- there is an irony there, and I don't have the time to go into all of the reasons, but I will mention a few of them.

In the last Congress, I worked with the EPA to negotiate a set of significant policy concessions that I believe would have allowed the Senate minority to agree to a more expeditious confirmation process for Mr. Wright.

I worked diligently until the closing of the last Congress--right until the bitter end, if you will--to achieve that objective, as I have done in good faith for other EPA nominees.

In fact, the very last nominee confirmed in the last Congress was an EPA nominee to head the Agency's Tribal Office, Chad McIntosh. My staff and I and others were very much involved in getting him confirmed.

In this Congress, EPA has refused to reengage with my office, with our committee staff, or with me on this nomination. The Agency no longer agrees to the policy concessions that I previously secured and to which they had previously committed in the last Congress. While this has been a real disappointment for me, unfortunately, it is hardly a surprise, given the increasingly extreme policy and tone of this EPA.

Second, EPA, under Mr. Wright's leadership for the past year, has failed to advance an area of policy that is critical to me and to many other Senators, and that is the regulation of PFAS chemicals known as permanent chemicals. Per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, known as PFAS, are a class of manmade chemicals that includes something called PFOA, PFOS,

GenX, and many other chemicals. Developed in the 1940s, PFAS can be found across industries in many products, including food packaging, nonstick pans, clothing, furniture, and firefighting foam used by the military.

Just this week, Donald Trump said: ``We have the cleanest water we have ever had.'' The President has often made this statement while asserting his commitment to ensure that our drinking water is safe.

In his confirmation hearing, EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said:

It is these Americans that President Trump and his

Administration are focused on, Americans without access to

safe drinking water or Americans living on or near hazardous

sites, often unaware of the health risks that they and their

families face. Many of these sites have languished for years,

even decades. How can these Americans prosper if they cannot

live, learn, or work in healthy environments? The answer is

simple. They cannot. President Trump understands this and

that is why he is focused on putting Americans first.

That is from Andrew Wheeler, now our EPA Administrator.

Yet under Peter Wright's leadership for the past year, EPA's Office of Land and Management has failed to heed these words. Peter Wright serves on a temporary basis without confirmation.

I think we have a poster here that is relevant.

A study released today by the Environmental Working Group identified 712 locations in 49 States that are contaminated with PFAS--712 locations in 49 States that are contaminated with PFAS--from coast to coast, from our Canadian border to the Gulf Stream waters.

Just last year, the town of Blades in the southern part of Delaware alerted its 1,250 residents to stop using public water for drinking and cooking because of PFAS contamination at nearly twice the Federal health advisory level.

Just an hour from Blades, up north on Route 13, officials at the Dover Air Force Base found that 36 of the 37 sampled ground water wells showed dangerously high levels of PFOS and PFOA, related to, we believe, the use of chemicals in firefighting foam at the base.

It is not just Delaware. PFAS contamination is widespread, in red States, in blue States, in small water systems and large ones, on military sites and in residential areas, from Maine to Alaska.

While industrial manufacturers and users of these chemicals are responsible for much of the contamination, it turns out that a principal user of PFAS was our military.

I speak as a retired Navy Captain speaking here to a Presiding Officer who is a marine, and for us it is personal and part of our history in the military.

But it turns out that a principal user of PFAS was the military, which used it as a firefighting foam, as I said earlier.

In 1973, I was a young naval flight officer stationed at Moffett Field naval air station in California, and on a sunny April day, as I was driving into work from my home in Palo Alto, I saw a big, black plume of smoke rising above my base after, as it turned out, a massive NASA Convair jet descended on runway. We had parallel runways, and air traffic control had directed two aircraft to land on the same runway at the same time. As a result, the large NASA Convair jet descended on a runway where a P-3 aircraft--my sister squadron's aircraft--had already landed and was taxiing, and the larger aircraft literally landed on top of the smaller aircraft.

It took over an hour for firefighters to control the blaze. Sixteen people died, and only one crewman on the P-3 survived. These were my brothers and sisters. These were my sister squadron mates.

I understand that PFAS-containing foam has supported our military readiness and saved lives better than most, but the cruel irony is that when PFAS winds up in a glass on the kitchen table, these same chemicals endanger lives.

The Environmental Working Group--that is the name of a group--has identified 117 military sites, including 77 airfields, with PFAS contamination because of the use of PFAS-containing foam to both train for and fight fires involving highly flammable jet fuels.

Yet in many States, cleanup of these sites has been stalled, and the military has shockingly been part of the problem.

In May of last year, 2018, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt held a PFAS National Leadership Summit and proudly announced four ``concrete steps'' that EPA would take to address PFAS contamination. The second of these four steps was that EPA would propose designating PFOA and PFOS--two of the most dangerous, troubling elements in this class of chemicals--as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. That was more than a year ago.

Making that designation would compel the Defense Department to stop fighting cleanups in States all across the country. Indeed, in some cases, the Defense Department has justified its refusal to clean up PFAS contamination on grounds that the Superfund designation has not yet been made.

Designating these substances as hazardous would also unleash EPA resources to address cleanups of orphan sites where there is no identified liable polluter.

Despite Scott Pruitt's commitment to move forward with the designation of PFAS as a hazardous substance under the Superfund law, under Peter Wright's watch, EPA hasn't even proposed--has not even proposed--to do that, let alone finalize the action. At this rate, it will be at least another year, maybe longer, before this vital step will be taken. Americans deserve better than this, and they deserve greater urgency on this issue.

Last month, the U.S. Senate, right here, passed its National Defense Authorization Act, which included several important bipartisan provisions to address PFAS contamination. Notably, I could not even secure an agreement to allow a vote on my amendment that would designate PFAS as hazardous substances under the Superfund law. I did not get a vote on my amendment, despite the fact that 35 Democratic and Republican cosponsors on bipartisan legislation clearly signaled their support for this policy. Meanwhile, EPA continues to drag its heels, acting with far more urgency to repeal environmental regulations than to clean up the water our government's own activities have inadvertently contaminated. Mr. Wright will have the ability to make this hazardous substances designation for PFAS if he is confirmed. Let me say that again. Mr. Wright will have the ability to make this hazardous substance designation for PFAS if he is confirmed. He should hear strongly from this Senate our collective desire that he urgently do so.

It was my hope that, despite the many disagreements my colleagues and I have had with the Trump EPA on their views on climate change and some environmental rollbacks, there could at least be some commonsense agreement on the need to clean up widespread PFAS contamination. That has not been the case, at least thus far.

Third, and finally, a late-breaking matter came to the committee's attention this week regarding an ethics investigation into Mr. Wright's financial disclosures. Chairman Barrasso and I received news from the White House Office of Government Ethics, known as OGE, that Mr. Wright, despite numerous written assurances to the contrary, held stock in DowDuPont at the time he filed his nominee financial disclosure report and continued to do so until this March 12, a couple of months ago. Although EPA believes that Mr. Wright has complied with all applicable ethics laws during that period of time, OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, asserts that it currently lacks the information necessary to make such a determination or to send a completed amendment to his ethics agreement and financial disclosure report to our committee.

OGE, Office of Government Ethics, felt compelled to share this information with the EPW Committee because of its direct relevance to the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's nomination today.

In light of the ongoing OGE investigation, I would implore my colleagues to delay the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's nomination for the time being. I don't suggest delaying consideration of this nominee lightly. Again, I was one of the key people standing in this Chamber back at the end of December trying to get this man confirmed. In fact, any delay in the Senate's confirmation and the Senate's consideration of Mr. Wright's

nomination would not prevent him from continuing to serve in his current capacity, as he has done since he first arrived at EPA in an acting capacity on July 9, 2018.

I strongly believe we must afford OGE--Office of Government Ethics-- and EPA the opportunity to complete their investigations into this matter and fully share all relevant information, for both the sake of Mr. Wright and for the Agency. If the facts are as described by EPA, then a completed investigation would be to Mr. Wright's benefit. Let me say that again. If the facts are as described by EPA, then a completed investigation would be to Mr. Wright's benefit.

Let me close by saying, if, however, OGE and EPA reach a different conclusion, such information would be directly relevant to every Senator's deliberation when voting whether to confirm Peter Wright to the position of Assistant Administrator in the Office of Land and Emergency Management at EPA.

From conversations I had with EPA yesterday, it is my understanding that EPA is working to get the relevant information to OGE to provide to the Senate. Proceeding with the consideration of this nomination while resolution of this ethics matter between EPA and OGE is pending I think deprives the Senate of important and relevant information. I have urged delaying this vote today. I would do so again. In the absence of that delay, along with the other reasons I mentioned, I will vote no on the motion to proceed to the nomination of Peter Wright. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that two congressional fellows in Senator Udall's office, Caitlin Keating- Bitonti and Lindsay Coughtry, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 116th Congress.

Madam President, this Saturday is June 22. It is not just any June 22. It marks 75 years to the day that Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed into law one of the most significant pieces of legislation in our Nation's history. It was called, and is called, the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. We know it today as the GI bill.

Since 1944, the GI bill has helped literally millions of not just servicemen but a lot of servicewomen. When you look at our Armed Forces today, there are a lot of servicewomen who serve in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and in the Coast Guard. I remember being a midshipman at the Ohio State Navy ROTC in the 1960s, and we had no women in our unit. There were no women in any ROTC unit in colleges across the country, as far as I know. There were no women who were nominated to attend armed service academies--the Naval Academy, Air Force Academy, Merchant Marine Academy. None of them had women. I got to my squadron on the west coast during the Vietnam war, and we had about 300 men in my squadron. About 10 percent were officers. The others were enlisted men. We had no women in my squadron.

All that has changed. When you go to any college that has a ROTC unit today, they are allowing women in. In the academies, you find women. In my old squadron, we find women. They are not just E-1s, E-2s, and E-3s; they are O-4s, O-5s, O-6s, and they are doing a great job. The GI bill is for them too.

Since 1944, the GI bill has helped millions of World War II veterans purchase a home, pay for a higher education or obtain job training and, in turn, transformed our Nation's economy.

Our Presiding Officer, who has served our country in uniform, knows of what I speak. I was just off of Active Duty at the end of the Vietnam war and in Delaware when I finished up my MBA, which is financed in part by the GI bill. I had scraped enough money together to buy a house. I think it cost about $35,000. I didn't have $35,000, but with the help of the GI bill, I was able to get a mortgage and buy my first home, all those years ago.

In the years since World War II, the GI bill has continued to change the lives of millions of veterans by spurring economic opportunity and helping to create the middle class as we know it today. That is why earlier this week I was proud to reintroduce a bipartisan resolution in the Senate, alongside my colleagues Senators Johnny Isakson of Georgia and Jon Tester of Montana. They are the chair and ranking member of the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, which designates this week as National GI Bill Commemoration Week, celebrating the historical significance of the GI bill and renewing our commitment to improving the lives of our Nation's veterans for years to come.

I want to share with you a couple of reasons why the GI bill is oftentimes referred to as the ``greatest legislation'' and share with you how it changed my life and really the life of my family.

After World War II, millions of returning veterans flooded our Nation's colleges, our universities, and our vocational schools. It was the GI bill that made financial support, education, and homegrown programs available to those 16 million veterans returning home and helped to usher in an era of unprecedented economic expansion.

According to the 1988 report from the Joint Economic Committee, it was estimated that for every $1 the United States invested in our GIs through the GI bill, about $7 were returned in economic growth for our country.

I am going to say that again. According to the Joint Economic Committee in 1988, it was estimated, for every $1 the United States invested in the GI bill, about $7 were returned to our economy. It is a pretty good return.

Those are big returns. I wish I could say for every dollar we invested in Federal Government spending that we got seven bucks back, in terms of economic growth. We don't. So this is something to know.

Thanks to the original GI bill, 450,000 engineers, 240,000 accountants, 238,000 teachers, 91,000 scientists, 67,000 doctors, 112,000 dentists, and thousands of other professionals entered our country's workforce, and many folks entered the workforce with skills in building trades, in assembly operations. You name it.

The GI bill truly democratized our higher education system. It established greater citizenship and civic participation and empowered the ``greatest generation''--my parents' generation--to lead our country following World War II.

At the end of World War II, my dad was the chief petty officer in the Navy and served until the end of World War II and a little bit after that and served many years after that as a chief petty officer in the naval reserve for, I think, 30 years in all. He came back. Before he went to work, he took advantage of the GI bill, and he had a real knack for fixing things and building things. He was very skilled in that regard. He had a high school education. He and my mom graduated from Shady Springs High School in Beaver, WV. They were married during World War II. My sister was born in 1945, and I was born in 1947. My dad used the GI bill, he once told me, to learn how to fix wrecked cars, how to be an auto body repairman. He ended up working at an Oldsmobile dealership in Beckley, WV, Burleson Oldsmobile, using the skills he gained from the GI bill. He worked there for a year or two. One day, a claims adjuster came in from the Nationwide Insurance company. Nationwide insured a car that was being repaired by my dad. The claims adjuster talked to my dad about the car and how it was coming. Somewhere in that conversation, the fellow from Nationwide Insurance said: You know, you could do what I do.

My dad said: You mean be a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance?

The guy said: Yes, you could do this. You have a lot on the ball.

Two years later, my father was a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance. He continued to repair wrecked cars as a hobby. We had any number of cars in our family that looked as good as new. He would take them on weekends and went to a garage and fixed them, painted them, and they were as good as new.

Out of that humble beginning as a claims adjuster for Nationwide Insurance--he was very proud of the work he did, but he ended up 20, 25 years later as one of the top instructors for Nationwide in their home office in Columbus, OH, teaching all the claims adjusters from across the country for Nationwide how to do the job adjusting claims, working on claims.

Here is a picture of my dad, Wallace Richard Carper. He went by Richard, his middle name, my middle name. He instructed a bunch of folks in the home office in the training school in Columbus, OH. Here he is with some of his compadres, some of the fellow teachers whom he worked with. It started with the GI bill.

I know people who used the GI bill to get an undergraduate degree or 2-year degree, associate's degree, a master's degree, a Ph.D. Not everybody used the GI bill for that. My father used it in a way that actually ended up enabling him to not only get a good blue-collar job but also actually to end up doing this kind of work as well. I am proud of him and thankful to the GI bill for helping him get started and serve as a role model for my sister and me.

My own career, I served 5 years on Active Duty as a midshipman, before that at Ohio State, and served 5 years in the Vietnam war, three tours in Southeast Asia. I wanted to stay in the Navy. I wanted to go to graduate school after my career. The Navy wasn't ready to send me to Monterey. I wanted to go to Monterey to graduate school. The Navy wasn't ready to send me to a postgraduate school. They said to come back and talk to them in a couple of years.

I wanted to go to graduate school. I entered my regular commission, took a Reserve commission, and moved from California to Delaware--the University of Delaware--and enrolled on the GI bill to go to graduate school.

The next weekend, after I showed up in Delaware, I drove up the road to Willow Grove Naval Air Station in Pennsylvania, north of Philadelphia, and they were just getting the Navy P-3 aircraft. I had been a P-3 aircraft mission commander during the Vietnam war. I said: Are you looking for people who might help train these sailors at Willow Grove on how to use these P-3 airplanes?

He said: We need somebody. We need some help, and we are were happy to sign you up.

I flew with them for another 18 years and retired as a Navy captain.

Before I did those 18 years, I went to graduate school at the University of Delaware and earned an MBA, and that helped me go to work for the State of Delaware in economic development, right out of graduate school, and later had a chance to run for the State treasurer. Nobody wanted to run. In knowing I had an MBA from the University of Delaware, some people thought maybe I could be a pretty good State treasurer. We ended up starting with the worst credit rating in the country back in 1977, and 6 years later, we had doubled the credit rating. Pete du Pont was our Governor, and he was a great Governor.

I hope I helped a little bit along the way. That GI bill helped me in earning my MBA and, later, to have had a chance to have served in the House, then as Governor, and now here in the Senate. So I am deeply grateful to the people of this country for investing in me. I tried to work hard to repay that investment they made in me all those years ago.

Today's veterans can take advantage of the post-9/11 GI bill. It is an incredible benefit that pays the full cost of tuition at public colleges and universities, offers a generous housing allowance, and pays for books. It can even be transferred to veterans' spouses or children.

In 2017, I was proud when Congress enacted the Forever GI bill-- legislation that expanded the GI bill and strengthened the protection for our veterans, for Purple Heart recipients, for National Guard reservists, and for surviving spouses and children.

About 2 or 3 weeks ago, we had a send-off ceremony in the Delaware National Guard facility in Smyrna, DE, which is just north of Dover. There were 20 or so National Guard men and women. They were about to ship off for Iraq and other surrounding countries in that part of the world.

In my remarks to send them off and wish them well, I mentioned, when they come home, they will be eligible for the GI bill if they have a total of 36 months of service, which will enable them to go to college for free--to the University of Delaware, to Delaware State University, or to the Delaware Technical Community College. There will be no tuition, and books will be paid for. If they need tutoring, it will be paid for, and they will receive a $2,000-a-month housing allowance.

When we came back from Southeast Asia at the end of the Vietnam war, in the GI bill, we received a $250-a-month allowance for everything. That was it. It was all there. The GI bill that our veterans inherit today, receive today, is just incredibly generous and is, actually, very helpful in terms of recruiting people to serve in an all-volunteer military.

One of the aspects of the bill that I mentioned a minute ago was, if a GI doesn't use his or her GI bill, his or her spouse can use it. If his or her spouse doesn't use it, his or her dependent children can use it. Sometimes that happens, and I want to share one sad but, in the end, hopeful story about one servicemember's GI benefits.

His name was Christopher Slutman. He grew up not too far from Delaware, but he ended up serving in New York City as a fireman and had been one for 15 years. In the words of Winston Churchill, he was twice a citizen because, in addition to doing that, he served in the Reserves for a number of years--not in the Navy but in the Marines.

His unit was activated. He was activated, and he ended up in Afghanistan on Active Duty. He took leave from his day job as a firefighter in New York City to put on a different uniform and ship out with his colleagues to go to Afghanistan. He was serving there on Active Duty--a marine reservist activated--when, one day while on patrol within the Humvee, they ran across a bomb that exploded and killed him, Christopher Slutman, and killed two other marines who were in the vehicle.

Along with Chris Coons, my colleague here in the Senate; Lisa Blunt Rochester, our only Representative at large of the U.S. House of Representatives; our Governor, John Carney; the Secretary of Defense; the head of the Marine Corps; and a lot of other people, several days later, I stood on the flight line at Dover Air Force Base with the families of those three marines who died.

One of the people among the three families was Christopher Slutman's now widow. Shannon Metcalf Slutman was there, who has earned three degrees herself--her undergraduate from the University of Delaware, a master's degree, and a doctorate degree--and her three daughters were not. I think it was late at night. They were probably at home and probably in bed.

When Christopher Slutman died, he left behind a widow, and he left behind three little girls, ages 4, 8, and 10. His wife doesn't need to go to school any further. She is educated well beyond my dreams. Do you know what, though? They have three daughters, and we are going to make sure, when they are old enough to go to college, they will be able to inherit and use the GI bill's benefits that their father and their mother will never use.

A lot of times, we think about what the GI bill does to help servicemembers like me and like my dad, but it also helps a lot of families in ways we, maybe, never imagined. So I think we celebrate 75 years of the gift that this legislation provides to those survivors, like to the three Slutman girls, as they prepare to face the world without their father.

In closing, I am proud to join families across our country today in celebration of the importance of the GI bill over the last three- quarters of a century. It has enabled hundreds of thousands of veterans, including, as I said earlier, my dad and me, to pursue our dreams and to, hopefully, contribute in some way to our Nation and to our economy. This week, we reaffirm our commitment to making sure that all veterans today have similar experiences--maybe even better experiences--than we had and that they get the most out of their hard- earned GI bill benefits.

I ask all of my colleagues to join us today, here in this Chamber and across the country, in wishing the GI bill a happy 75th birthday. Here is to another 75 years of improving the lives of our Nation's veterans.

I yield the floor.

While the Senator from Oregon is here, I just want to say he mentioned we have a very fine planet, and God knows we do, but it is also the only planet we have, and I think for certainly everybody who serves in this body--and maybe some of these young pages will have the opportunity someday to live on another planet but probably not.

The President of France was just down the hall 2 years ago. I am sure Senator Merkley remembers it. President Macron addressed us on a variety of subjects, but one of those was the future of our plant.

He said these words. I will never forget them. He said: We only get one planet, planet Earth. There is no planet B. This is it.

He reminded us of our obligation, really a moral obligation, to take care of this gift from God that he has entrusted into our care.

It is in that spirit that I am pleased to rise today with Senator Merkley and other colleagues to speak out against the so-called Affordable Clean Energy rule that repeals and replaces the Clean Power Plan from the previous administration.

As I said when this rule was proposed in, I think, August of last year--and our colleague, given where he is from in America, maybe they say this in his State too--but we have a saying here that you can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

I said at the time when this rule was introduced that the only thing that has changed from the proposal to the final rule is maybe a little more lipstick.

The Trump EPA rule promotes neither affordable energy nor clean energy. What it actually does is it attempts to scam the American people into believing that the EPA is doing something to stem the tide of climate change.

I think this poster probably speaks well to that thought, but this proposal, I think, is a failure of vision, and I think it is an abdication of leadership in our fight against climate change. We need to fight this problem head-on.

The fact that our climate is warming, the fact that we have this extreme weather, whether it happens to be in the Midwest with floods, the Northwest with wildfires the size of my State, whether it happens to be in the number of category 5 hurricanes that we are seeing, extreme weather--literally within an hour or so of here, Ellicott City, where they have had two 1,000-year floods in 18 months.

My wife and I were out in Palo Alto, CA, last weekend for the graduation of our oldest son from business school, and the week before we arrived there, he told us that the temperature in the Bay Area, where I used to be stationed in the Navy during the Vietnam war, he said that the temperature reached 104 degrees. I don't ever remember it ever reaching 94 degrees in the years I was stationed in Moffett Field Naval Air Station.

Something is going on here, and it is serious. I think we have a pretty good idea what is causing this, and we need to fight this challenge head-on.

The good news is this doesn't have to be something to divide us as a nation. It doesn't have to be something that divides us as Democrats and Republicans. It doesn't have to be something that divides us with respect to the rest of the world. This is something that should unite us.

There is an old saying that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Well, the enemy of a world that has all this crazy weather, extreme weather-- and maybe in a lot of places in the internal part of our country you don't see what we see. What we see is that my State is sinking. Delaware is the lowest lying State in America. We are sinking, and the seas around us are rising. That is not a very good combination.

Folks who don't happen to live on our coast--I was born in West Virginia, grew up in other parts of the country, but for us it is real. It is not just something that is esoteric. We see it every day.

The science behind climate change is, I believe, settled. Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a growing threat to our country, and it is getting worse every year.

Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, more frequent and severe weather events such as hurricanes, rainfall measured by the foot, not by the inch, and drought-fueled wildfires, as I said earlier, the size of my State.

The more I hear about these extreme weather events, the more I am reminded of the story in the Old Testament. I think it is in the book of Exodus, where you may recall that Moses gets a call from on high to lead the people of Israel out of Egypt where they are in bondage.

He tells God: God, I am not a very good public speaker, and I don't think you have the right guy to do this.

The Lord said to him: You have a brother, Aaron, who is a real good speaker, a real good talker. Why don't the two of you sort of lead this effort together?

So, urged by the Almighty, the two brothers visited the pharaoh who was running the show in Egypt. They called on him and said: We are here to ask you to let our people go. Set us free.

Pharaoh was stubborn. He rejected their plea, and there were consequences to that rejection. I think there were about 10 different plagues that were brought to bear on Egypt in an effort to try to convince the pharaoh to let the people go, like the hordes of locusts that covered the land.

Moses and Aaron would go back to see the pharaoh and would say: We

want you to let our people go. The pharaoh would say, basically: Get out of here.

Then, after that, snakes would come out and appear everywhere, all over the land.

They would go back and see the pharaoh, and he would say: Get out of here.

Lizards came out of the rivers and covered the land, and they went back to see the pharaoh, and he said: Get out of here.

Finally, the river was turned to blood, and they went back to see him, and he said: Get out of here.

Finally, after the 10th plague, he changed his tune. The 10th plague, as you may recall, if you remember the Old Testament--the 10th plague was the firstborn sons of every Egyptian family died.

That time when Moses and Aaron showed up to see the pharaoh, he said: Why don't you leave. Take all your people and your stuff and just leave, and they left--and they left.

Our President's dismissal of the extreme weather that is associated with the unrelenting worsening reality of climate change reminds me of the pharaoh's dismissal of the plagues unleashed on the people of Israel 2,000 years ago.

The pharaoh was dismissive. This President is dismissive. We have seen this movie before. In this movie version of it, our President is playing the role of pharaoh, and we need to make sure we don't succumb to that.

The Obama-Biden administration finalized the Clean Power Plan to reduce carbon pollution and try to stem the tide of climate change.

The Clean Power Plan established the very first Federal targets to reduce carbon emissions from our Nation's electric powerplants, which at the time were the largest source of carbon pollution in our country not that long ago.

The rule was not developed on a whim. The Clean Power Plan was finalized after a lengthy rulemaking process, which was 2 years or longer in the making. They considered over 3.5 million public comments, and I am told they responded to every one of them.

The Clean Power Plan set real carbon reduction targets for each State but gave flexibility and time for States to meet these individualized standards. EPA estimated the Clean Power Plan would have achieved over $54 billion--that is billion with a ``b''--in health and climate benefits if fully implemented. The Clean Power Plan provided long-term certainty for U.S. businesses, helping American companies make smart investments at home and compete in the global energy market around the world.

When finalized, critics of the Clean Power Plan--and there were plenty of them--argued the plan's carbon targets were too ambitious. That is only about 4 or 5 years ago. Critics swore that every American consumer who relies on electricity to keep the lights on would soon be in dire straits. Administrator Wheeler echoed these false claims just yesterday. Today, we know just how wrong the Clean Power Plan critics were.

Even though the Clean Power Plan was never fully implemented, States and utilities went ahead and started making investments in order to meet the plan's carbon standards. They began acting in a way that said: We believe this is the way we are actually going to go as a country, and we need to get onboard.

As with other clean air regulations, America's utilities have been able to find ways to meet the carbon reduction targets faster and much cheaper than originally estimated. When George Herbert Walker Bush was President, he pushed for a cap-and-trade approach to reducing acid rain in the northeastern part of our country. It was killing all of our forests, and he came up with a plan to reduce acid rain cap and trade. People said: It is going to cost too much; it is going to take too long. At the end of the day, it cost less than half of what it was supposed to cost, and I think it was accomplished in about one-third of the time.

Today, our Nation's utilities are already on track to meet and surpass the goals set by the Clean Power Plan way ahead of schedule-- not on schedule but way ahead of schedule--because even though the Clean Power Plan was held up in court, it sent clear signals to the utility industry of this country.

All the while, the vast majority of Americans are now enjoying lower utilities--let me say that again. They are enjoying lower utility bills, not higher, and more than 3 million Americans are now going to work in the clean energy sector every day, which includes jobs in renewable energy generation and energy efficiency.

Despite the revolutionary changes in our energy sector, leading climate scientists are now telling us that we need to do even more to protect American lives and our economy from the threats of climate change.

In the past year alone, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued an alarming report that concluded that if the global community does not enact ``rapid and far-reaching'' carbon reduction policies in the next decade, we could face irreversible damage to our planet as soon as 2040.

Just 6 months ago, 13 Federal agencies under the Trump administration concluded unanimously that if this country does not take more drastic actions to address climate change, every major sector of our economy could be negatively affected by climate change by the turn of the century--every one. Some sectors are expected to see hundreds of billions of dollars of loss every year. My recollection is, in the last year alone, we have suffered damages from extreme weather in our country that add up to hundreds of billions of dollars in 1 year alone.

What a science-based agency like EPA should be doing is building off of Obama's forward-looking carbon reduction vision and strengthening the Clean Power Plan standards, not weakening them. But even though utilities are on track to meet carbon reduction targets and scientists are warning us to keep our foot on the gas pedal, the Trump administration, sadly, is hitting the brakes.

What this EPA has done fails to heed the warnings of climate scientists by weakening the Obama-Biden carbon standards put into place almost 4 years ago. The Clean Power Plan set clear targets for States to achieve a 32-percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030. Let me say that again. The Clean Power Plan set clear targets for States to achieve an almost one-third reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector by 2030.

In comparison, the Trump proposal fails to set any real carbon emission standards for the power sector. It fails to set any real carbon emission standards for the power sector.

This new proposed rule provides States with a menu of options for making coal-fired powerplants operate more efficiently, allowing States to decide whether to make coal plants implement those options. This means States could do nothing to clean up their powerplant emissions-- nothing.

Add it up, and the dirty power scam fails to drive down powerplant carbon emissions. According to EPA's own analysis, this rule is, at best, going to keep powerplant carbon emissions at status quo levels. At worst, there are credible reports that show the scam may well result in an increase in carbon emissions.

Like all climate change policies by President Trump, the dirty power scam also fails to advance the American clean energy economy. Instead, this rule tries to take our country back to a decade ago, when this country relied much more heavily on dirty coal generation. EPA Administrator Wheeler even touted the dirty power scam as a way to support more coal energy production in the United States. But ask any utility CEO or investor. America's future is not in dirty coal; it is in clean energy.

As a native of West Virginia whose family members once worked in coal mines, let me say this. There are 50,000 people who work in coal mines in this country today, and those jobs are going down. Today, there are 3 million people who work in sustainable energy and clean energy and conservation businesses, and for each of those 50,000 miners, we have an obligation to them and their families. If they lose their employment opportunities because we are moving to cleaner, carbon-free air, we have an obligation to help them in terms of transitioning and training for other jobs that are available. We have 3 million jobs today in this country that nobody showed up to do because they don't have the skills, the education, or the desire to do those jobs.

Coal miners could do a number of jobs. People who work in coal mines could build windmills. They could build solar fields. They can do all kinds of stuff. They can build clean corridors for our transportation, fueling electric-powered vehicles across the highways across America. They could build hydrogen fueling stations. They can do all kinds of stuff.

Today, our utilities are making investments that will last 40 to 60 years, if not longer. We should be providing the right market signals today for a clean energy economy tomorrow.

The dirty power scam doesn't do that. What it does is create business uncertainty for our Nation's utilities and States grappling with the effects of climate change.

To recap, if I could, the dirty power scam does three things, regrettably: It fails to heed the warnings of climate scientists; it fails to drive down powerplant carbon emissions; and it fails to advance a clean energy economy.

Referring again to the failure of vision and leadership, that is why the dirty power scam is a failure of vision and an abdication of leadership in our fight against climate change. Repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with a rule as ill-conceived as the dirty power scam will have serious consequences for the health of the public, our economy, and our planet. It is also a clear retreat from the EPA's responsibility to tackle the greatest environmental crises we face on our planet today, and those are climate change and the extreme weather that flows from it.

The people of this country deserve a strong economy. They deserve more job creation. They deserve cleaner air. They deserve better environmental quality. The American people and our neighbors around the world deserve a healthy planet that we can call home. The American people deserve better than the dirty power scam, plain and simple.

My colleagues and I are going to do everything in our power to make sure that the people of this country ultimately get the climate protection they deserve.

The last thing I would say before yielding back to Senator Merkley is that the issue of climate change is not something that should divide us. Ultimately, this is something that should unite us, not just within this body, not just within this country, but around the world. That is my hope and prayer because, at the end of the day, we can clean our air, we can clean our water, we can combat climate change, and we can create a lot of jobs--a lot more than the 3 million jobs we have already seen created.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following interns from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff have privileges of the floor through July 31, 2019. Their names are Emma Runge, Kelsey Lessard, and Peter St. Amand.

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these events will become more and more common due to climate change-- including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence.

The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species.

If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non- point source water pollution, and to develop special area management plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding issues.

The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes.

There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management programs, including both States and territories. In order for the District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am once again introducing legislation to allow the District of Columbia to receive funding and other benefits under the Coastal Zone Management Act. I am pleased to offer this companion legislation to a bill, H.R. 2185, introduced by the Congresswoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Few of us realize that 70 percent of the District is located within the coastal plain. Similar to my State of Delaware, sea level rise, upstream sources of water, degraded infrastructure, and coastal subsidence mean that the District could experience serious future cleanup and repair costs due to flooding--including damage to federal property, which makes up almost 30 percent of the District. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reports that since 1950, nuisance flooding has increased by more than 300% in the District. And, since 2006, DC has experienced two 100-year flooding events, and District officials estimate that a future 100-year flood event could cause over $1.2 billion in damages. Needless to say, these events will become more and more common due to climate change-- including rising sea levels--and coastal subsidence.

The District of Columbia would use funding from the Coastal Zone Management Program for flood risk planning and environmental restoration to prevent and mitigate future flood damage. At the same time, this work would help to restore and conserve the District's coastal resources such as habitat, fisheries, and endangered species.

If included in the Coastal Zone Management Program, the District of Columbia would be eligible for $1 million or more of federal funding annually to assist in coastal flood-control projects, to combat non- point source water pollution, and to develop special area management plans in areas experiencing environmental justice and/or flooding issues.

The National Coastal Zone Management Program, housed in NOAA, was established through the passage of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. At the time, Congress recognized the need to manage the effects of increased growth in the nation's coastal zone, which includes jurisdictions bordering the oceans and the Great Lakes.

There are currently 34 jurisdictional coastal zone management programs, including both States and territories. In order for the District of Columbia to participate in the program, Congress must pass this amendment to the Coastal Zone Management Act that would include the District under the definition of a ``coastal state.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, years before President Trump moved to the White House, even before President Obama and his family lived there, our Nation was at odds with an isolated country ruled by a repressive leader. It wasn't long before it became clear to the United Nations and to our country's own intelligence community that the country I am speaking of was enriching uranium for the purpose of obtaining a nuclear weapon, threatening to destabilize a region of great strategic importance.

As the world was winding down from a cold war, tensions between the United States and this country were heating up. An administration that some would call naive recently attempted to deescalate tensions, taking an unprecedented step to hold out an olive branch to an unpredictable regime in hopes of reaching a momentous agreement to stop them from continuing to enrich uranium. Surprisingly, that President trusted and was willing to give unprecedented concessions, all without any reliable mechanism to verify whether the nuclear enrichment had indeed ended.

My Republican colleagues would be surprised to hear me say this today, especially today, a week after the anniversary of the U.S. decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. They are right to be surprised because I am not talking about Iran; I am talking about North Korea. I am not talking about President Barack Obama; I am talking about Donald Trump.

Donald Trump was willing to sit down with a criminal dictator and give away unprecedented concessions in the hopes that North Korea would abandon its nuclear program. On the other hand, he turned his back on Iran, a large country with a growing moderate population--roughly 75 million people, the majority of which, the last I checked, are under the age of 25--and a moderate President. Let me be really clear. There are some bad actors in Iran, and some of them are in powerful positions. But, unfortunately, the actions of this administration, unlike the actions of the last administration, the Obama administration--here is what they sought to do. They sought to diminish the extremists, the hardliners, and their sway over what happens in Iran and at the same time bolster a new generation of Iranians who are growing up, who are more moderate in nature and, frankly, who would like to have a better relationship with our country. Sadly, President Trump turned his back on Iran and looked forward to taking a different course--a different course for sure.

Unlike North Korea, Iran committed 2 years ago to unprecedented, invasive inspections under a deal called JCPOA. On July 14, 2015, after years of careful preparation, the Obama administration began implementing the JCPOA with Iran and five negotiating partners--Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China--in an effort to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons for years and, possibly, if we are lucky, forever. The deal was not based on trust; it was based on mistrust-- mistrust.

There is a Ronald Reagan line that says: ``Trust, but verify.'' That is not the underlying principle with the Iran deal, the JCPOA. It is mistrust, but verify. That is the theme that underlies the JCPOA.

Under that agreement, Iran was required to end uranium enrichment for nuclear purposes and would be subject to invasive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the IAEA. To the surprise of many, they had apparently held up their end of the bargain until now.

We pulled out of the JCPOA a year ago. Our other negotiating partners stayed in, and the IAEA recently certified for the 14th time in a row-- I think in February of this year--that Iran has complied with the terms of the agreement, the letter and spirit of the agreement that we pulled out of a year ago. We are the only one who has pulled out of it to date. The IAEA itself says that the inspection regime laid out by this agreement, the JCPOA, is the world's toughest--the world's toughest.

Here is the bottom line. Because of the JCPOA, Iran is much further away from developing a nuclear weapon today than it was before the deal was signed several years ago. However, as I said earlier, we have not held up our end of the bargain. One year ago, President Trump announced that this country would unilaterally leave the JCPOA, even though the IAEA certified for the 14th time in a row, this year, that Iran has complied with the terms of the agreement. But we pulled out, leaving our allies, who committed to the deal in good faith, in the lurch.

This decision we made, I think regrettably a year ago, had consequences. Instead of celebrating continued stability provided by the Iran nuclear deal last week, Iran's President, President Rouhani, announced that Iran will begin to end its compliance with some portions of the JCPOA, including by stockpiling enriched uranium and heavy water.

As I said at that time, President Trump's decision increased the odds of armed conflict with Iran while doing nothing to constrain their other malicious activities in the region. Again, make no mistake. Not everybody in Iran wants to be our friend. Mostly young people want to be our friends, and a lot of folks who have been elected to office over there would like to have a friendly, better relationship with this country. But there are some who do not, and I fully acknowledge that.

Today, thanks to President Trump's appointment of John Bolton to be our National Security Advisor--the President's National Security Advisor--we are seeing that prediction come truer than I could have imagined.

Last month, the Trump administration designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a foreign terrorist organization, further antagonizing Iran. Members of the Trump administration are reportedly mulling over a plan to refuse to issue sanctions waivers to our European allies who intend to purchase oil from Iran, and the administration has reportedly drawn up plans to send 120,000 of our troops to the Middle East in response to alleged increased threats from Iran. But our allies in the region and around the world, including the French, the Brits, and the Germans, say that they have seen no such threat. All of this is happening in the absence of a Senate-confirmed Secretary of Defense.

Earlier this week, I was out for a run a couple of miles from here. If you run from the Capitol down to the Lincoln Memorial and then turn around and sort of head back this way, you run by the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Whenever I run alongside the memorial, I take my left hand, and with my fingers, I touch the names of 55,000 men and women who died in that war. I served with them. I am the last Vietnam veteran serving in the Senate. They died, and many of us risked our lives over a war that was based--really, premised--on an untruth; some would say a lie.

In August 1964, then-President Lyndon Johnson announced that the North Vietnamese had engaged the U.S. Navy in the Gulf of Tonkin, and he asked Congress to pass a resolution supporting retaliatory attacks. The following day, he added these words to his request: ``The United States intends no rashness and seeks no wider war.'' Those were his words in August 1964.

His administration went on to justify a bloody, almost decades-long war after that on the basis of that document--55,000 of my colleagues, my shipmates, my fellow marines, our soldiers, our airmen--55,000-- dead.

We had a similar situation in Iraq. It did not involve the Gulf of Tonkin. It did not involve ships. It really didn't involve the Vietnamese. But there were allegations and assertions that the Iraqis were developing weapons of mass destruction. The President, the Vice President--in that case, Bush and Cheney--the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State all asserted that the Iraqis were developing weapons of mass destruction and called on this Congress to give the President the power to respond appropriately.

There are 55,000 names on the Vietnam memorial wall. There is no wall for the 4,100 men and women who died in Iraq after Congress provided President Bush the authority to respond to the alleged, perceived threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. While there is no wall on which to write those 4,100 names, those names are written in graveyards in every State in this country--4,100 men, women, some young and some old, who laid down their lives on what was really based on a lie--weapons of mass destruction.

I want to say that lie was chiefly perpetrated, if I am not mistaken, by a fellow named John Bolton and that administration.

Fast forward to today. We have seen this movie before. Thanks to John Bolton's rash actions in the Mideast, I can see it happening again.

I don't want to see it happen again. I have been to too many funerals of people, servicemembers from Delaware, who died in Iraq. I don't want to go to any more. I don't want to have to visit any more spouses, children, parents, brothers, and sisters, as we have done in recent years with families who have been crushed by sorrow flowing from our engagement in Iraq.

John Bolton has agitated for war with Iran for over a decade. He even wrote an op-ed about it. The op-ed was entitled: ``To Stop Iran's Bomb, Bomb Iran.''

Under Mr. Bolton's leadership, the Trump administration's Iran policy is becoming ever more dangerous and ever more isolated from our traditional allies. This strategy could very well plunge us into another foreign war, if not corrected.

This needless escalation is no way to conduct our foreign policy or to safeguard our national security. What is more, the administration's actions with respect to Iran haven't just increased the odds of an armed conflict. They have also damaged the credibility of our country around the world. If the United States cannot be trusted to uphold our commitments to those with whom we negotiate, there is little reason to believe that other countries, let alone nuclear-armed ones like North Korea, would be willing to negotiate with us in good faith.

Now, there is another option here. Yesterday former U.S. Ambassador Wendy Sherman published an op-ed in the New York Times in which she wrote the following:

But war is not inevitable. President Trump campaigned on

bringing troops home, not sending tens of thousands more to

the Middle East. Such a deployment, although inadequate for a

full-scale war, is more than foolish. War in the Middle East,

as we should have learned by now, is neither swift to end nor

sure to achieve its purpose.

Reformists in Iran have expressed an interest in diplomatic solutions with the United States and our allies, including a possible prisoner exchange. The foreign minister of Iran, whom I first met a dozen years or so ago at the Iranian Ambassador's residence in New York City--not the Ambassador to the United States but the Ambassador to the United Nations, a fellow name Javad Zarif. It turned out that when I met him, I was impressed with how well-spoken he was. It turns out he had gone to undergraduate school at San Francisco State, I believe, in California. He is a really smart guy. He is not only well spoken but knew a lot about America and spoke English as well as any of us in the room. He went to graduate school in Denver, CO, and he ended up here as the Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations.

Later, when Ahmadinejab left office--Ahmadinejab was a bad guy, a really bad guy, and was President of Iran before Ruhani--Ahmadinejab sent Zarif back home, got him out of the United States, got him back to Iran, and he sort of disappeared until the new elections. Ruhani emerged as the more moderate--kind of a Gorbachev-type guy, really-- leader in Iran and said: Zarif, I would like you to be my foreign minister. That is like being their Secretary of State, a position that he still holds.

Not long ago, about a couple of weeks ago, in that role, he suggested that we do a prisoner swap. We hold a number of people of Iranian descent who are in this country. They hold about a half dozen or so of our folks, I think mostly with dual citizenship, in their country. Foreign Minister Zarif said: Why don't we just do a straight-out prisoner swap?

That would actually be a good start to maybe tamping down the rhetoric and to see if we can't find common ground with Iran again.

During the 8 years of previous administrations, our foreign policy was designed to strengthen the standing of the moderates in Iran and to undermine the power of the hard-liners in that country. Actually, it worked--not perfectly, but it worked. The elections that they conducted a couple of years ago--6 years ago--reflect that.

Sadly, this administration--I can't believe they did it intentionally, but their policy in the last just 2 years or a little over 2 years--what they have done is to undermine the effectiveness and the standing of the moderates in Iran, and they have rallied support of Iran around the extremists and around the hard-liners. It is just the opposite of what was done in the last administration.

We have to be smarter than that. We have to be smarter than this. When I think about the contrast between the Trump administration's actions in North Korea and Iran, I can't help but wonder why there is such a stark contrast? I would not trust the leader of North Korea any further than I could throw him, and for this President to embrace this guy and to trust him in ways that befuddle me--and, I think, a lot of other folks, including folks in his party--is beyond me.

But why has this administration been so determined to abrogate a carefully crafted deal that keeps Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon? Why will President Trump not work to ensure the freedom of Americans held in Iran? Well, part of the answer is provided by Thomas Friedman, a highly regarded famous journalist whose column appears from time to time in national newspapers.

Tom Friedman wrote, a year or so ago, something called the ``Trump Doctrine.'' I think it provides an answer to the question: Why has President Trump been so determined to get us out of the JCPOA and to embrace a leader like the one we have over in North Korea?

The ``Trump Doctrine'' from Tom Friedman goes something like this. He said: ``Obama built it, I broke it''--``I,'' being Trump--``you''-- including us here in this body--``fix it.'' That is it. ``Obama built it, I''--Donald Trump--``broke it--you''--the rest of us--``fix it.''

I think my colleagues would agree that it would be a travesty if the President's determination to destroy President Obama's achievement--an achievement shared by others in this country and by our allies and friends in, among other places, Britain, France, and Germany--but our President's determination to destroy Barack Obama's achievement, the achievements of his administration--in this case, the Iran nuclear deal--led us into another endless war in the Middle East.

I urge President Trump, as he has done in the case of North Korea, to engage in diplomacy and ratchet down tensions with Iran, rather than engaging in needless provocation.

Mr. President, you meet with the President more than I do, but some of the times I have been with him in the last 2 years, whenever he mentions

George W. Bush, in the same breath he talks about how he got us into a war that cost us thousands of lives and has cost literally tens of billions of dollars--the Iraq war. So that would suggest to me that the idea of drawing more troops and a whole lot more money into a war with Iran has to be something you do with care.

So on this 1-year anniversary of the Trump administration's pulling out of the Iran deal--I think, foolishly doing so--I would urge the President and his advisers to think carefully about what outcomes we really seek as a country. We should be prioritizing diplomacy at this time, not escalating tensions and risking war with American lives with no coherent strategy. It is my hope that cooler heads will prevail. It is also in America's best interest that they do.

John Kennedy said a lot of things that are memorable, and one of my favorites is this: ``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.''

``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.'' I think we would be wise to remember those words with respect to Iran.

The last thing I would say to the Presiding Officer, who is former military, is this. When I finish speaking, you are going to be succeeded by a Marine colonel who serves here from Alaska. We know people we serve with people who have given their lives up in combat in wars far away around the world.

We are very proud in Delaware. The Dover Air Force Base may be the best airlift base in the world. There are 5,000 or 6,000 people who work there, mostly uniformed, and big planes, C-5s and C-17s. Maybe it is the best airlift base in the world.

Dover Air Force Base is also home to a mortuary. A month ago, the bodies of three marines, one of whom is from Delaware, were brought back to this country. In this case, their vehicle in Afghanistan was blown up by a roadside bomb, and we lost three of them just like that. They are not the first, and, sadly, they will not be the last members of our Armed Services to come home.

For one of the marines, Christopher Slutman, his body came home to his wife Shannon and to their three daughters, ages 4, 8, and 10. I have seen this movie before. I have seen it at Dover Air Force Base with countless bodies that have come back from overseas. I think about those kids every day, and I am sure my colleagues think about the men and the women from their States who have served, in some cases, with great courage and valor. But the idea that 55,000 of those colleagues of mine who served in Vietnam in a war that was premised on a lie and 4,100 are buried in graveyards all over this country--we have to be smarter than that. We owe it to not just the families of those men and women who have died but to the ones who serve today and their families.

``Never negotiate out of fear, but never be afraid to negotiate.''

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I wish to pay tribute to an American hero and patriot who was taken from us far too soon. Earlier this month, I was standing in the flight line at the Dover Air Force Base alongside Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester and Senator Chris Coons. We were there to receive the remains of three marines killed in action on April 8, 2019, when a roadside bomb went off in Afghanistan. Two of the servicemembers killed were Active Duty: Cpl Robert A. Hendriks, of Long Island, NY, and SSgt Benjamin S. Hines of York County, PA.

There was a third: SSgt Christopher Slutman, a Reservist, a 15-year member of the New York City Fire Department, and a Delawarean. The 43- year-old U.S. Marine was also a loving husband to his wife Shannon and father to three daughters: McKenna, Kenley, and Weslynn. In life and in death, Staff Sergeant Slutman epitomized the best of America. He selflessly put his life on the line to protect and serve his country and his community.

It was Winston Churchill who once said, ``The reservist is twice the citizen.'' By that measure, Christopher Slutman was three times the citizen. He wore two uniforms in service to our Nation. He was staff sergeant in the U.S. Marines, serving in the 25th Marine Regiment, Fourth Marine Division in the Marine Forces Reserve, based in Harrisburg, PA. He was also a decorated 15-year veteran of the New York City Fire Department.

Friends say that Christopher always dreamed of being a firefighter. He grew up in Maryland and graduated from Frederick Douglass High Schoo1, where he played football, baseball, and wrestled and achieved Eagle Scout status. Eventually, he volunteered with fire departments in Maryland and Washington, DC. Most recently, he split his time between the Bronx and Wilmington, DE. Most days, I ride down to Washington, DC, from my home in Wilmington to do my job. Staff Sergeant Slutman took the train the opposite direction to do his job. He so wanted to serve that he would travel from his home in Delaware to Ladder Company 27 in New York City. In fact, he was on military leave from Ladder Company 27 and nearing the end of his most recent deployment with the Marine Reserves in Afghanistan when he and two comrades lost their lives.

It was Slutman's work in the Bronx where, in 2014, he won the Fire Chiefs Association Memorial Medal for rescuing an unconscious woman from the seventh floor of a high-rise apartment building.

Scripture tells us in John 15:13, ``Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends.'' Staff Sergeant Slutman lived that kind of profound love: dedicating his life to serving others, even at his own peril, and it seems that this kind of selflessness and devotion to service was a hallmark of the Slutman household. Staff Sergeant Slutman is survived by three brothers. One of his brothers is in the Marines, another in the Army. The third is a firefighter in Washington, DC. Their father is an Army veteran and was a volunteer firefighter, as was Slutman's mother. Here is a family who has, and continues to, truly give of themselves in service of others.

Last Friday, I was honored to have been able to join Staff Sergeant Slutman's family, friends, and fellow servicemembers in New York City to pay our respects to a man who gave his life for this country. The first speaker at his funeral was Marine SgtMaj Christopher Armstrong, who served alongside his friend Chris for 8 years. Armstrong remembered his friend with these words. He said, ``Upon joining the unit, I began observing the Marines; who they watched, how they looked at their leaders, and what they said. There were a small number of men that when they spoke, silence fell; when they issued an order, the response was immediate; and when they were looked upon, it was with reverence. Christopher Slutman immediately stood out as a leader who was respected and admired. He didn't pound his chest, he didn't try to impress or go on about what he was going to do. He just did it.''

Armstrong continued. ``He placed his Marines' welfare before his own, always. Chris never sought credit, but he always gave it.''

FDNY Commissioner Dan Nigro also spoke. He described Slutman as ``the type of American we can all be proud of.'' And he added, ``Chris was a protector of those in danger, a defender to those who needed him, a rescuer to those who needed saving, and a leader who demonstrated his valor on every tour of duty both here and abroad.''

It was a poet named Edgar Guest, who spent his life in Detroit, MI, and was often referred to as the People's Poet, who once said, ``I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day.'' Christopher Slutman's life was a better lesson than any sermon. He demonstrated the absolute best of this country every day with his heroism and service to others. The way he lived his life and gave his life is a language that is clear to one and all.

It is with a heavy heart that I, along with the entire First State and the country, offer our sincerest condolences to his wife Shannon and his three girls. Their dad is an American hero. I, along with our Governor, John Carney, and Delaware's congressional delegation, promise you that he won't soon be forgotten, and I know that his legacy lives on in you.

Mr. President, I want to thank my friend and colleague from Ohio for his kindness in yielding to me today.

I rise this afternoon to pay tribute to an American hero--this man right here--an American hero and patriot who was taken away from us far too soon.

Earlier last month, I was standing on the flight line at Dover Air Force Base alongside Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester; our colleague in the Senate, Chris Coons; and our Governor, John Carney. We were there to join the members of three families who had come to receive the remains of their loved ones, all marines who had been killed in action on April 8--a couple weeks earlier--when a roadside bomb went off in Afghanistan near Kabul as their convey was passing through.

Two of the servicemembers killed were Active Duty: Cpl Robert A. Hendriks of Long Island, NY, and SSgt Benjamin S. Hines of York County, PA, which is not too far from my State of Delaware.

There was a third marine, SSgt Christopher Slutman. Christopher was a reservist, a 15-year member of the New York City Fire Department, and a Delawarean. The 43-year-old U.S. marine was also a loving husband to his wife, Shannon, and the father of three girls: McKenna, age 10; Kenley, age 8; and Weslynn, age 4.

In life and in death, Staff Sergeant Slutman epitomized the best of this country. He selflessly put his life on the line to protect and serve his country and his community.

We read in the New Testament these words, and I will paraphrase them: No greater love hath a man than his willingness to lay down his life for a friend.

These three marines laid down their lives for our country, and they also laid down their lives for a nation we are allied with, the government and the people of Afghanistan.

Winston Churchill said a lot of memorable things, but one of the most memorable to me, a retired Navy captain, is that a reservist is twice a citizen. A reservist is twice a citizen.

By that measure, Christopher Slutman was three times a citizen. He wore two uniforms in service to our Nation. One of them was this uniform, the fire department--a 15-year, decorated veteran of the New York City Fire Department--and also that of a staff sergeant of the U.S. Marines, serving in the 25th Marine Regiment, 4th Marine Division in the Marine Forces Reserve, which is based in Harrisburg, PA.

Christopher's family calls him Chris. Chris had always dreamed of being a firefighter. He grew up in Maryland. He graduated from Frederick Douglass High School, where he played football, basketball, wrestled, and achieved Eagle Scout status. As a father of two Eagle Scouts, that is quite an achievement. Eventually, he volunteered with fire departments in Maryland and in Washington, DC. Most recently, he spent his time between the Bronx and Wilmington, DE, where his wife and three daughters lived full time.

As my colleagues know, I live in Delaware, and I commute to work here by train almost every day--3, maybe 4 days a week. Christopher Slutman had a similar kind of commute. His family was in Delaware, and instead of coming this way, he would go north to work as a firefighter in New York City. He took the train in the opposite direction to do his job. He so wanted to serve that he would travel from his home in Delaware to Ladder Company 27 in New York City almost every day. In fact, he was on military leave from Ladder Company 27 and nearing the end of his most recent deployment with the Marine Reserves in Afghanistan when he and his two comrades lost their lives.

It was for Chris Slutman's work in the Bronx that in 2014 he won the Fire Chiefs Association Memorial Medal for rescuing an unconscious woman from the 11th floor of a high-rise apartment building. I heard a firsthand account of that rescue, and it tells the story of a hero and a woman who could easily have died, and she didn't, and it was because of his actions. Staff Sergeant Slutman lived that kind of profound love. He dedicated his life to serving others even at his own peril.

It seems that this kind of selflessness and devotion to service was a hallmark of the Slutman household. Staff Sergeant Slutman is survived by three brothers. One of his brothers is in the Marines, another is in the Army, and the third is a firefighter in Washington, DC--right here. Their father was an Army veteran and was also a volunteer firefighter, as was Chris Slutman's mother. What a family--Marines, Army, volunteer firefighters, firefighters up in New York City. I like to say leadership is leading by example. Leaders lead by example. It is not do as we say, but do as we do. They provide an incredible example for all of us.

Last Friday, I was honored to have been able to join our Governor, John Carney, and Staff Sergeant Slutman's family, friends, and fellow servicemembers in New York City to pay our respects, along with the mayor of New York City and many other dignitaries who were there to pay their respects to a man who gave his life for this country.

The first speaker at his funeral was Marine SgtMaj Christopher Armstrong--another Christopher--who served alongside his friend Chris for 8 years. Marine Sergeant Major Armstrong remembered Chris Slutman with these words. Here is what Christopher Armstrong had to say:

Upon joining the unit, I began observing the Marines; who

they watched, how they looked at their leaders, and what they

said. There were a small number of men that when they spoke,

silence fell; when they issued an order, the response was

immediate; and when they were looked upon, it was with

reverence. Christopher Slutman immediately stood out as a

leader who was both respected and admired. He didn't pound

his chest, he didn't try to impress or go on about what he

was going to do. He just did it.

He just did it.

Sergeant Major Armstrong continued:

Chris Slutman placed his Marines' welfare before his own.

Chris never sought credit, but he always gave it.

Think about that. That is a good lesson for all of us, even here. Chris Slutman never sought credit; he always gave it to others.

Fire Department New York Commissioner Dan Nigro also spoke. He described Chris Slutman as ``the type of American we can all be proud of.'' He continued: ``Chris was a protector of those in danger and a defender to those who needed him, a rescuer to those who needed saving, and a leader who demonstrated his valor on every tour of duty, both here and abroad.'' Those are the words of the Commissioner of the New York City Fire Department.

I believe there was a poet named Edgar Guest--like a house guest-- Edgar Guest. I think he spent most of his life in Detroit, MI. He was oftentimes referred as a people's poet. He

used to say: ``I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day.'' Think about that. ``I'd rather see a sermon than hear one any day.''

Chris Slutman, your life was better than any sermon.

Chris demonstrated the absolute best of our country every day with his heroism and his service to others. The way he lived his life and the way he give his life is a language that is clear to one and all.

It is with a heavy heart that I, along with the entire First State-- that is the State of Delaware--and the people of this country, offer our sincere condolences to Chris's wife, Shannon, and their three girls. Their dad is an American hero.

Our congressional delegation and our Governor promise that he will not soon be forgotten.

I know that his legacy lives on in his daughters and in his wife Shannon.

A friend of mine was married to a Navy SEAL a number of years ago. That marriage produced a daughter who is 18 years old and who will graduate from high school later this month. Her dad died of complications of PTSD. He served in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recall. He later came down with ALS, Lou Gehrig's disease. He succumbed to that about a year ago. Members of my staff in Delaware--constituent service staff--have worked for months trying to make sure that his 18-year-old daughter would be eligible for the benefits of her Navy SEAL dad, now deceased. We learned last month that she will be eligible.

One of the things our congressional delegation will work hard to do is to make sure that to the extent that Chris Slutman was eligible for the GI bill--and our guess is that he was--those benefits, under the law, if not used by the veteran, by the soldier, by the sailor, or by the airman, could be used by the spouse, and if not used by the spouse, could be used by a dependent child.

There are three dependent children here--three daughters who are beautiful girls, who anyone would be proud to claim as their own child, grandchild, or niece. We are going to work hard to make sure that those GI bill benefits--if there is any way to do this legally--accrue to Chris and Shannon and Shannon's three daughters.

I, again, thank my friend Senator Portman for his kindness in yielding tonight.

To Chris Slutman: God bless you, Chris.

Thank you.

I yield the floor.