Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Coastal Barrier Resources

Act is an important, free-market conservation tool that does not regulate how people develop their land, but transfers the full cost of developing in risky, environmentally sensitive areas from taxpayers to the individual choosing to develop. The Coastal Barrier Resources System also provides much-needed habitat for our Nation's treasured wildlife, including federally threatened Red Knot birds in Delaware.

H.R. 5787 adds approximately 18,000 acres along the Delaware, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida coasts to the Coastal Barrier Resources System, protecting these barrier islands, beaches, wetlands, and aquatic habitat from federally funded development.

H.R. 5787 also corrects an error that placed part of Bethany Beach, in my great State of Delaware, within the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discovered this error during a Coastal Barrier Resources System digital mapping pilot project, which Congress directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undertake in 2000.

Digital mapping has enabled the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to greatly improve mapping accuracy as the Service updates outdated maps and makes determinations about whether properties fall inside or outside the Coastal Barrier Resources System. However, as our colleagues in the U.S. House of Representatives drafted H.R. 5787, concerns arose regarding the security and permanency of digital maps.

To address these concerns, the U.S. House of Representatives included section 3 in H.R. 5787. However, this legislation is not intended to prevent the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from using various digital tools, digital data, and digital maps to help implement the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

I would ask if my distinguished colleague, the Senator from Wyoming, chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, could confirm my understanding about the use of digital maps under H.R. 5787?

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his confirmation of my understanding. In conclusion, I also want to thank my colleague for working with me and all of our colleagues to enact this bipartisan legislation into law. During a time of frequent partisan gridlock, I am proud of the work of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works for shepherding agreement on many important issues, including this one.

Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act, or WHERA, which I am introducing today with my good friend (Ms. Murkowski), the senior Senator from Alaska.

In 2005, my dear friend, former Senator Voinovich, came to me with a great idea--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. DERA didn't roll back emissions standards for diesel engines, but instead created an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to incentivize the use of newer diesel technology. Together, and joined by many of my colleagues that are still serving in the Senate today, we established one of the most successful clean air programs on the books. This program is one that is loved by retailers, manufactures, States and health groups alike.

As many of my colleagues know, I'm someone that is always trying to find out what works and do more of it. When my staff explained to me the public health challenges that residential wood heaters present to communities, especially rural communities across this country; I knew the challenges were very similar to the ones we faced with diesel engines in 2005. I knew if DERA could be a successful program to retrofit or replace old diesel engines, we could use the program as a framework to replace residential wood heaters.

Like the eleven million old diesel engines that were on the road a decade ago, there are over eleven million homes that use wood as a primary or secondary heat source, and a majority of those homes are located in rural

areas. These residential wood heaters, such as woodstoves, pellet stoves and wood furnaces, often have a long life-span, some lasting more than fifty years. Due to this long lifespan, industry estimates that six million residential wood heaters in operation today do not meet 1988 EPA Clean Air Act emission standards, much less the current emissions standards implemented in 2015.

Collectively, older residential wood heaters are a major source of air pollution in the United States, especially in rural areas. According to EPA, older, inefficient residential wood heaters can produce a deadly mix of particulate matter (or PM), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ozone), black carbon (which contributes to climate change) and air toxics (such as benzene and formaldehyde). This pollution builds up inside and outside the home and contaminates the air we breathe. This pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause lung damage, cancer, and other significant health problems, including death.

As other industries clean up their air emissions, older, inefficient residential wood heaters stand out among the largest sources of PM pollution. EPA data indicate that nation-wide, inefficient residential wood heaters emit five times more PM pollution than the U.S. petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, and pulp and paper plants combined. In Delaware alone, older wood heaters are the second largest source of PM pollution in the state, contributing more than highway vehicles, electric utilities and the petroleum industries combined. In Alaska, inefficient woodstoves and wood heaters play a significant role in the classification of Fairbanks as a nonattainment area for fine particulate air pollution.

Fortunately, technology made and sold in the U.S. can dramatically reduce the pollution that is emitted from residential wood heaters and the amount of wood needed to heat a home. Wood heaters being made today that meet EPA's strictest emission standards emit at least 70% less PM and save consumers twenty to forty percent in heating costs from gained efficiencies. If we could encourage all homeowners to use the latest residential wood heater technology, it could have a massive beneficial effect on public health. EPA has determined that replacing just one old, inefficient wood heater is equivalent to taking five dirty diesel engines off the road and the monetized public health benefits from replacing the Nation's old, inefficient residential wood heaters would be up to $126 billion per year. Baser on all that we know, it is clear that replacing older stoves for newer, cleaner burning stoves will result in cleaner air, lower healthcare bills and lower costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, as with old diesel engine owners, most homeowners are not aware of the health problems associated with their old wood heaters or cannot afford to buy a new wood heater on their own. This means that newer, cleaner heaters are not getting into homes fast enough. The Carper-Murkowski Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act attempts to solve this problem.

WHERA authorizes a five-year grant program at EPA to incentivize the removal and replacement of old, inefficient residential wood heaters for more efficient, clean-burning heaters. Specifically, WHERA funding targets incentives to: (1) scrap or recycle old wood heaters; and (2) replace them with new, efficient, clean burning and properly installed heaters that at least meet EPA's most stringent wood heater emission standards. Using the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a model, WHERA allows States, Indian tribes, territories, and local air quality agencies to compete for Federal dollars to fund wood heater change-out programs that work for their communities.

WHERA also supports retailers and manufacturers with the transition to cleaner, more efficient residential wood heaters. WHERA incentivizes homeowners to buy the best available residential wood heater products-- when they might not otherwise do so--giving financial incentives for retailers and manufacturers to sell and make the best products. Overall, the residential wood heater industry has been supportive of such wood heater change-out programs at the State and local level.

Because rural areas and tribal areas have a disproportionate need, WHERA also requires that Indian tribal and rural communities are fairly represented in funding allocations and that Indian tribal governments receive at least 4% of total funding under the program.

My friend from Alaska and I feel that we've put together a program that will be as, or more, successful than the DERA program. Replacing outdated wood heaters with new clean-burning heaters that meet EPA emission standards will reduce toxic air pollution and particulate matter, protect public health, and support American jobs. This legislation is a true win-win-win, and one that I commend to my colleagues for their serious consideration.

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act, or WHERA, which I am introducing today with my good friend (Ms. Murkowski), the senior Senator from Alaska.

In 2005, my dear friend, former Senator Voinovich, came to me with a great idea--the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. DERA didn't roll back emissions standards for diesel engines, but instead created an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant program to incentivize the use of newer diesel technology. Together, and joined by many of my colleagues that are still serving in the Senate today, we established one of the most successful clean air programs on the books. This program is one that is loved by retailers, manufactures, States and health groups alike.

As many of my colleagues know, I'm someone that is always trying to find out what works and do more of it. When my staff explained to me the public health challenges that residential wood heaters present to communities, especially rural communities across this country; I knew the challenges were very similar to the ones we faced with diesel engines in 2005. I knew if DERA could be a successful program to retrofit or replace old diesel engines, we could use the program as a framework to replace residential wood heaters.

Like the eleven million old diesel engines that were on the road a decade ago, there are over eleven million homes that use wood as a primary or secondary heat source, and a majority of those homes are located in rural

areas. These residential wood heaters, such as woodstoves, pellet stoves and wood furnaces, often have a long life-span, some lasting more than fifty years. Due to this long lifespan, industry estimates that six million residential wood heaters in operation today do not meet 1988 EPA Clean Air Act emission standards, much less the current emissions standards implemented in 2015.

Collectively, older residential wood heaters are a major source of air pollution in the United States, especially in rural areas. According to EPA, older, inefficient residential wood heaters can produce a deadly mix of particulate matter (or PM), carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (which contribute to ozone), black carbon (which contributes to climate change) and air toxics (such as benzene and formaldehyde). This pollution builds up inside and outside the home and contaminates the air we breathe. This pollution can trigger asthma attacks and cause lung damage, cancer, and other significant health problems, including death.

As other industries clean up their air emissions, older, inefficient residential wood heaters stand out among the largest sources of PM pollution. EPA data indicate that nation-wide, inefficient residential wood heaters emit five times more PM pollution than the U.S. petroleum refineries, cement manufacturers, and pulp and paper plants combined. In Delaware alone, older wood heaters are the second largest source of PM pollution in the state, contributing more than highway vehicles, electric utilities and the petroleum industries combined. In Alaska, inefficient woodstoves and wood heaters play a significant role in the classification of Fairbanks as a nonattainment area for fine particulate air pollution.

Fortunately, technology made and sold in the U.S. can dramatically reduce the pollution that is emitted from residential wood heaters and the amount of wood needed to heat a home. Wood heaters being made today that meet EPA's strictest emission standards emit at least 70% less PM and save consumers twenty to forty percent in heating costs from gained efficiencies. If we could encourage all homeowners to use the latest residential wood heater technology, it could have a massive beneficial effect on public health. EPA has determined that replacing just one old, inefficient wood heater is equivalent to taking five dirty diesel engines off the road and the monetized public health benefits from replacing the Nation's old, inefficient residential wood heaters would be up to $126 billion per year. Baser on all that we know, it is clear that replacing older stoves for newer, cleaner burning stoves will result in cleaner air, lower healthcare bills and lower costs for consumers.

Unfortunately, as with old diesel engine owners, most homeowners are not aware of the health problems associated with their old wood heaters or cannot afford to buy a new wood heater on their own. This means that newer, cleaner heaters are not getting into homes fast enough. The Carper-Murkowski Wood Heater Emissions Reduction Act attempts to solve this problem.

WHERA authorizes a five-year grant program at EPA to incentivize the removal and replacement of old, inefficient residential wood heaters for more efficient, clean-burning heaters. Specifically, WHERA funding targets incentives to: (1) scrap or recycle old wood heaters; and (2) replace them with new, efficient, clean burning and properly installed heaters that at least meet EPA's most stringent wood heater emission standards. Using the successful Diesel Emissions Reduction Act as a model, WHERA allows States, Indian tribes, territories, and local air quality agencies to compete for Federal dollars to fund wood heater change-out programs that work for their communities.

WHERA also supports retailers and manufacturers with the transition to cleaner, more efficient residential wood heaters. WHERA incentivizes homeowners to buy the best available residential wood heater products-- when they might not otherwise do so--giving financial incentives for retailers and manufacturers to sell and make the best products. Overall, the residential wood heater industry has been supportive of such wood heater change-out programs at the State and local level.

Because rural areas and tribal areas have a disproportionate need, WHERA also requires that Indian tribal and rural communities are fairly represented in funding allocations and that Indian tribal governments receive at least 4% of total funding under the program.

My friend from Alaska and I feel that we've put together a program that will be as, or more, successful than the DERA program. Replacing outdated wood heaters with new clean-burning heaters that meet EPA emission standards will reduce toxic air pollution and particulate matter, protect public health, and support American jobs. This legislation is a true win-win-win, and one that I commend to my colleagues for their serious consideration.

Mr. President, the Presiding Officer knows I spent a little time in the Navy. So did my father. My father enlisted in the Navy right before World War II broke out. He was not 18.

George Herbert Walker Bush, I think on his 18th birthday, just out of high school, enlisted in the Navy as a seaman second class. About a year later, he was off to Corpus Christi Naval Air Station, where I earned my wings as a naval flight officer a long time ago. He became an ensign, I think at the age of 19, and became, maybe, the youngest Navy pilot around that time that they had in the Navy, if you can believe that. A year or so later, I think in September of 1943, he was on the USS San Jacinto in the Pacific and flew avenger bombers with the 3rd Fleet and 6th Fleet. When you think about it, at that point in time he must have been about 20 years old, flying avenger bombers. That is pretty amazing.

When I was 20 years, I was a sophomore or junior at Ohio State. The idea of flying missions, as we did stuff in the summers with Navy ROTC in Corpus Christi, flying airplanes and so forth--to be flying missions in the Pacific theater in the middle of World War II is pretty astounding.

In 1944, he would have been maybe 20 years old, not quite 21. He was a lieutenant JG. I think I made lieutenant JG when I was 22 or so. But later that year, in 1944, when he was still about 20 years old, he was shot down off the coast of Chichijima by a Japanese anti-aircraft flier while flying a mission to bomb an enemy radio site located on the Bonin Islands about 600 miles south of Japan. In some of my missions during the Vietnam war, we flew by there. He was rescued by the U.S. submarine Finback after he had floated around the ocean for a while in an inflated raft. God bless the folks on the Finback. They somehow found out he was out there and found him. It was like finding a needle in a haystack. I have done a fair number of search and rescue missions out of a P-3 airplane. To find somebody on a little dingy from an airplane is hard enough, but to find them from a submarine is even more difficult. It is miraculous to me that on September 2, 1944, they found him and saved him.

In November of 1944, he returned to his ship, the USS San Jacinto, and participated in operations in the Philippines until his squadron was sent home. I have some fond memories of operating missions in the South China Sea out of the Philippines and off the coast of Southeast Asia. But his career took him there. I think at that time he was about 21, an old guy, in the Navy.

A year or so later, in September of 1945, he was discharged from the Navy. He had served 58 combat missions during World War II, for which he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. You don't get much better than a Distinguished Flying Cross. So there were three air medals--I had one, and this guy had three--and the Presidential Unit Citation awarded to his

ship, of which he was a member for a number of years. That is one heck of a record for a guy who signed up as a seaman second class at the age of 18 and 3 years later finished up after flying all those missions when he was 21. I am still thinking about what I was doing when I was 21. I wasn't doing this. I was looking forward to going into the Navy on Active Duty and ended up in Southeast Asia with John McCain, from Arizona, one of our colleagues and the Presiding Officer's wingman in the Senate for a number of years.

I had never met George Bush when he was on Active Duty or in the Navy. I was not yet born. My dad served about the same time, never at the same time at the same duty station, although they both spent a fair amount of time in airplanes. My dad was a chief petty officer.

My guess is that George Bush got pretty good leadership training from his parents, but, starting from the age of 18, the Navy took over and provided him with exceptional leadership training. I would like to think some others--including John McCain, hopefully yours truly, and some others with whom we served, not just in World War II but in subsequent wars, including Vietnam and even today--received great leadership training in the military. George Herbert Walker Bush was trained, as was I and as were many of our peers, that leaders are humble, not haughty. Think about that: Leaders are humble, not haughty. Speeches were given last week as we gathered in the Capitol, and thousands of people have walked by his casket since. If there was ever a leader I have met who was humble, not haughty, it was George Herbert Walker Bush.

He was trained that leaders lead by their example. It is not do as I say, but do as I do. That is what he was like. He had the heart of a servant throughout his life. I can't remember all of the different roles in which he served. Maybe our Presiding Officer can help me; maybe the Senator from Tennessee who has joined me can fill in the blanks. But it was a pretty amazing career, which includes jobs I wasn't even mindful of. A lot of us remember he was head of the CIA. Everybody knows he was President and Vice President. But there were so many other jobs--Ambassador to China and a host of other challenging positions--that he fulfilled every step of his life.

He was a Congressman and served in the House for 4 years. This is really instructive; if Senator Alexander would correct me if I am wrong, my recollection is that he ran for the U.S. Senate not once but twice and was not successful either time. Sometimes we learn more when we are unsuccessful than when we are successful.

He was the kind of leader who thought that part of being a leader is staying out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. He was the kind of leader who felt that a leader should be aspirational and appeal to people's better angels. He was the kind of leader who surrounded himself with really good people. I have known a bunch of them, and so have some of you. He surrounded himself with exceptional people.

He was the sort of leader who, when the team did well, he would give credit to the team, and when the team fell short, he would take the blame. He was one of those leaders who actually sought to unite people, not divide people. We hear a lot these days about building bridges and building walls. He was a bridge builder, never much for building walls.

One of my favorite quotes about politics is that our friends come and go, but our enemies accumulate. All of those years, the people he ran against--Bill Clinton certainly comes to mind, but others, as well--had great affection for him and loved him. There is some secret there that the rest of us could probably learn from.

The other thing I am especially mindful of him as a leader is that he was interested in doing what was right--not what was easy or expedient, but what was right. He treated other people the way he wanted to be treated--the Golden Rule. He was interested in doing things well, and he wanted people around him to do things well--sort of like, if it isn't perfect, make it better. He was not one to give up.

For those reasons, and others, I would like to say that he was the kind of leader we need more of in both parties--here, in the executive branch, and in other branches of our government. We could use more like him, men and women. But those of us who were lucky enough to be around him, to learn from him, and to see him in action, whether he was successful or not--it was a great opportunity for us.

I have the opportunity now to serve as the senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee; our chair is John Barrasso. The chairman of the HELP Committee is here on the floor today, Senator Alexander. He and I, in earlier days--when he was a member of the Public Works Committee--worked on the Clear Skies legislation. President George W. Bush, the son of President George Herbert Walker Bush, proposed something called Clear Skies legislation--sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury. As I recall, Senator Alexander and I, maybe along with Senator Voinovich of Ohio, worked on something. I call it ``Really Clear Skies'' because sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury make CO2, carbon dioxide.

Much has been made of late of the environmental record of Richard Nixon. I never thought I would be extolling the virtues of Richard Nixon as our President, but I have quite a bit in the last several years as the senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. I am the only Democrat I know who quotes President Nixon. Richard Nixon said, among other things, that the only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. Isn't that good? The only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. We all make mistakes. I probably learn more from my mistakes than from the things I have done right.

People talk about the environmental legacy of Richard Nixon. He signed legislation creating the EPA; he signed legislation creating the Clean Air Act; he signed legislation creating the Clean Water Act. He did some amazing stuff, for a Republican President, with respect to the environment.

Not as much has been made of George Herbert Walker Bush's environmental record, but I have some notes that I am going to refer to here to help refresh my memory and maybe expand a little on what others know.

In the House of Representatives, when we were working on the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act, I had the opportunity to coauthor a couple of little pieces of that legislation, which he actually signed, so I feel a sense of ownership. He, as President, signed into law the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.

On the Friday after Thanksgiving, a couple of weeks ago, here in our Nation's Capital, 13 Federal agencies released a major report laying out the alarming impact that climate change is having on the environment, our public health, our economic growth, and our weather. I never thought I would see the day when we are measuring rainfall by the foot instead of by the inches. I never thought I would be seeing wildfires in California, Montana, Washington State, and Oregon that are bigger than my State of Delaware. I never thought I would see this many category 5 hurricanes. I never thought I would see two 500-year floods in Ellicott City, MD, just a short way up the road here. They didn't come every 500 years; they came one year after the other. I never thought I would see that kind of weather.

These Federal agencies put out a report a couple of weeks ago, laying out some of the alarming impacts that climate change is having on our environment, public health, economic growth, and our weather. That report is known as the ``National Climate Assessment.'' It is put out every 4 years as a result of an act signed in 1990 called the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Who signed it? Why, it was President George Herbert Walker Bush who signed it into law all those years ago.

The 41st President raised the alarm decades ago about a threat that he referred to as the ``ozone hole.'' That is what he called it, the ozone hole. The Clean Air Act of 1990, which he signed into law, hoped to implement the Montreal Protocol, a landmark international treaty to deal with the problem. The protocol is highly widely regarded as a success. The treaty is widely regarded as a success. A couple of years after that, he helped form the United Nations framework. If I am not

mistaken, I think he was maybe our Ambassador to the United Nations as well.

In 1992, he helped form the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which has now been embraced by every nation on Earth and is taking place this very week in Poland. Countries from throughout the world are there.

I mentioned earlier the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act, which turned out to be some of the most important environmental laws that we have on our books in this country, and that law enabled the government to control the nearly 200 toxic substances that are present in our air and pose threats to human health. That same law paved the way for cleaner running cars and clean fuels that have dramatically reduced pollution from smog.

I can remember when I was in the Navy, spending part of the summer at the Long Beach Naval Station on a big jumbo tanker. I like to run, and I remember running close to L.A. in the summer--late sixties. I remember on some days that I ran, I felt I was doing more damage to my lungs than I was doing good for my body, running and breathing that kind of air. The air in California was awful. It is not perfect today, but it is a whole lot better, except when there are all these fires they have to put up with.

According to the EPA, the 1990 amendments of the Clean Air Act, over the first 20 years of enactment, have also prevented 160,000 premature deaths, reduced illnesses and diseases related to air pollution, and spurred $2 trillion in overall economic benefits.

I will end with this. In February of 1990, President Bush said this about our changing climates. I want to quote him. He said:

We all know that human activities are changing the

atmosphere in unexpected and in unprecedented ways. Much

remains to be done. Many questions remain to be answered.

Together, we have a responsibility to ourselves and the

generations to come to fulfill our stewardship obligations.

Those are his words. Those words and the positions he took and the work his administration did on this front show real leadership and, maybe, the courage to stay out of step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune and a willingness to step up and address that unprecedented challenge that is before us.

He lived to be 94. He was active and vibrant almost to the end. I think a number of us have had the opportunity to serve as Governor with both of his sons and to know them as friends and leaders of our country. The legacy of their dad lives on through the children he and Barbara helped raise.

We miss his personality. We miss his warmth and his good humor. We miss his affection, and we miss his leadership. I hope our colleagues and, certainly, I can learn from his example and learn again over and over again from the example he set to do the right thing, even when it is not easy.

With that, I yield the floor.

Thank you, Mr. President.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress took a fresh--I want us to walk back in time a little bit to how we actually got here today.

In the wake of 9/11, Congress took a fresh look at some of our Nation's vulnerabilities and realized that our country's chemical facilities--part of our industry that our Presiding Officer knows a lot about--realized that our country's chemical facilities could be potential targets for terrorist attacks. So we created the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards Program, known as CFATS, to better protect high-risk chemical facilities from those looking to do us harm.

My recollection is not perfect, but my recollection is that among the people who were the prime authors of that were, I believe, Senator Collins from Maine and possibly Senator Lieberman from Connecticut, the senior Democrat and senior Republican on the Homeland Security Committee at that time. The program that was created--I believe, and I hope I am not mistaken, with their guidance and leadership at that time, roughly 10 years ago--started out with some stumbles out of the gate, as some of you may recall. The Department of Homeland Security-- then a younger organization--lacked the trust of industry. The program also lacked a long-term authorization. There was a fair amount of concern about predictability, and we know how businesses like predictability and certainty, which is understandable.

In 2014, Senator Coburn and I, the chairman of the committee at the time--and he was the ranking member--we had what turned out to be a great partnership on a lot of issues, including this one. We worked with industry stakeholders, the Department of Homeland Security, their folks, labor groups, and others in order to provide CFATS with a clear statutory authorization laying out the roles and responsibilities of chemical facility owners in securing their sites against attack.

What was first created when CFATS was a brandnew bill becoming a brandnew law was obviously not perfect. That is why we came back roughly 5 years later to perfect it. What we did in 2014--I think that is the right year--what we did then was not perfect

either. I think he knew that, and I knew that as well.

Having said that, it appears, for the most part, that the reauthorization that we worked on is working. It is not perfect, but it is working a whole lot better than what has been replaced. The GAO, for example, has reported that the Department eliminated the inspections backlog. We had a very long inspections backlog--huge. We have worked through that, and the Department has worked through that. I think we are seeing, over time, improved trust and a sense of cooperation between the Department and the stakeholders, including those in the industry.

The authorization that Senator Coburn and I worked on, which was almost 5 years ago, is set to expire in January. If it does, this important anti-terrorism program will, most likely, go back to a year- to-year authorization. Industry and labor groups and the Department deserve, I think, more certainty than that this time.

To his credit, Chairman Ron Johnson and his staff have worked cooperatively with mine this week to address a number of outstanding issues with the bill that was reported out of committee. It was one of those bills that was reported out of the committee--and we have all been there with, I think, an implicit understanding, a tacit understanding, that some work would be done on the bill on the way to the floor. With that in mind, at least this week, there has been an effort to do that from his staff and, I think, from my staff.

I thank him for his willingness to reinsert the enhancement to whistleblower protections that our ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, Claire McCaskill, and her staff worked hard to try to enshrine. However, the bill still contains a number of concerning provisions.

Most importantly, the bill would exempt facilities that store and manufacture some of the most dangerous materials--chemical explosives-- from regulation under CFATS if they are subject to a separate regulatory program. This change, as far as I know, has not been studied adequately, as a number of folks have suggested, and if enacted, it could expose our communities to significant harm.

Earlier today, I was surprised to receive a copy of a letter that I hold here from the Secretary of Homeland Security. I think the chairman alluded to it already. This letter from Secretary Nielsen basically urges caution in making the kinds of changes that our chairman's bill would provide. She has urged the House and the Senate to pass a clean reauthorization of the program in order to ensure that it does not elapse. So I was surprised to get this today and, I think, anticipating I would have this opportunity to have a back-and-forth with our chairman on a unanimous consent request.

I was also surprised to hear this morning that the chairs and the ranking members of the House's Homeland Security Committee and the Energy and Commerce Committee--committees that have shared jurisdiction over the CFATS Program--basically answered the administration's Secretary of Homeland Security's call by introducing a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the program for 2 years. Their bill--although, not perfect--would provide a 2-year extension--not perfect--or a 1-year extension--not perfect. Their bill would provide industry and stakeholders with the certainty they need but, maybe, not without some of the changes that should be made in the program as we know it.

I am trying to remember the name of a Paul Newman movie. Maybe the chairman can help me. I think it was ``Cool Hand Luke.'' Maybe the Presiding Officer can help me with the movie Newman was in when he was captured and was a prisoner and an inmate. He escaped, and he was hard to catch. Before he escaped, he was always at odds with the warden, who was a short, stout guy. It was cast in the South, so this guy had a real southern accent--the warden. They tracked him down. They had dogs, and they were doing everything they could to track down the character who was played by Paul Newman.

I see the Presiding Officer smile. He remembers this movie.

They finally captured Paul Newman, and the warden was really happy that they had their guy. He looked at Paul Newman, and I will never forget what he said: ``What we've got here is failure to communicate.'' Yet I cannot do justice to his accent.

I think, really, what we have here is a failure to communicate. Senator Ron Johnson and I get along pretty well, I hope. Until, actually, today or yesterday, we haven't had the kind of communication on this issue that we ought to have been having on something this important. I can object, and he can object to anything I might try to do with a 1- or a 2-year straight extension, but I think what we really need to do is kind of like lay down our arms--not literally our arms-- and go back not necessarily to our respective corners but to a negotiating table and, maybe, even invite some of our House colleagues and the Department--which, obviously, has a clear interest in doing this--and some other stakeholders to join us as well.

We are going to be in session. What is today? Today is the 29th of November. We could be here for a couple more weeks. I think there is probably time to, maybe, hammer something out. At the end of the day, if we are not successful in doing that, then we come back out here and go through all of this machination and object and counter object and so forth.

I think the folks who care about this and the communities that care about this--the folks who are in the chemicals business and the folks who make explosives--as well as the Department, which has jurisdiction, would like to see us try to work it out. As the chairman knows and as the Presiding Officer knows, we are working on a number of things together, and it is always my inclination to try to work things out. I think there is a win-win here. We just need to work a little harder to, as we say in Delaware, seize the day. I don't know much Latin, but I do know ``carpe diem.'' In Delaware, we say ``car-pa dee-um.'' We need to seize the day before time expires in a couple of weeks. That would be my thought.

I yield to the chairman for any thoughts that he has. He may want to pour water on what I just said. I hope not.

I am trying to think of a really quick comeback to this, but

my memory fails me. I have a pretty good one from John Kennedy, who once said to never negotiate out of fear but always be ready to negotiate. That is the preference--to never negotiate out of fear but be willing to negotiate.

I would just suggest that we kind of withdraw from what we are trying to do here in a parliamentary way and get back to negotiating. If, in the end, we come back here in a week or two, we come back, but I would like to give it the old college try.

I yield to the Senator.

I welcome your words.

I used to be a House Member. I think we need to respect their views as well. Obviously, they have some views that need to be taken into account. This is not something I have discussed with the Secretary. I don't even know how much she has thought about it, given everything else that is on her plate. Yet, clearly, she has people who work for her who have thought about it a lot, and I would very much welcome the chance to reengage with our chairman, his staff, and our staff but with some of the other stakeholders we have talked about here being engaged as well. We need to put some pedal to the metal and get something done.

Mr. President, I was prepared to ask the Senator to modify his request to the Senate and, instead, take up a bill that I have introduced that basically reflects what the Secretary has done and what the House has done and is at the desk.

Help me on this, Mr. President. I think the chairman of the committee is willing to withdraw his unanimous consent request. I think that is a good way to go.

I don't get to object to unanimous consent requests every day. I think I will do that in this case just to see what it feels like, but do it in the spirit of trying to get something done.

Good. All right. Thank you.

Democracy. What did Churchill say? Democracy is the worst form of government devised by way of man, except for all the rest. He also said that you can always count on America to do the right thing in the end, after trying everything else. Hopefully, in the end, we will get a lot closer to perfection. So let's give it a shot.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was happy to welcome back our colleagues this week from Thanksgiving and come back to work. A lot of stuff needs to be done and have some fresh energy and maybe some fresh ideas, but I hope my colleagues were able to get home for Thanksgiving and spend time with their families. I like to say the thing I like about Thanksgiving--it is my favorite holiday, and people ask why. It

has my six favorite F words: family, faith, friends, food, fun, football, among others. What is not to like about that--especially football that was played in Columbus, OH, on Saturday afternoon. I hope all Americans were able to enjoy some combination of those things over the holiday weekend.

You may be like me and many others across the country who took the long weekend to unplug a bit by turning off our phone, maybe turning off cable news, too, so we could reconnect with loved ones, but while many Americans were recharging--enjoying a good meal with family and friends, maybe watching a football game or doing some early Christmas shopping--some major news broke over the weekend.

Last Friday, on the day after Thanksgiving, 13 Federal agencies released a nearly 1,700-page report highlighting the devastating impacts climate change will have over the next 80 years if we do not change course now. The report was a dire warning to our Nation and to our planet but one we might have easily missed while celebrating the holiday with family and friends, and I am sure a lot of people did miss it.

I suspect the fact that this major report was released on Friday of a holiday weekend was not an accident. After all, the report, which was put together by experts from over a dozen agencies within the Trump administration, spells out the very real and very serious consequences of climate change--a global crisis that our President has repeatedly called a hoax. In fact, just yesterday the President said he is not among the so-called believers who see climate change as a pressing problem.

Luckily, we don't have to just blindly believe in climate change. We can look at the facts. Despite the Trump administration's best efforts to bury this report on a Friday afternoon, Friday evening, of a holiday weekend, those of us based in reality are going to make sure the clear facts in it are broadcast far and wide.

This particular report took not a year, not 2 years but 3 years to write. It was written by more than 300 Federal experts, non-Federal experts as well, who volunteered their time. It was only finalized after an extensive public outreach and interagency review process. This report wasn't thrown together to push any agenda. It is a scientific report, and its conclusions should be important to every person, not just living in my State or the 49 or 50 States but everybody who lives on this planet because it has implications for every single one of us.

I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to go over some of the highlights of the report. Why don't we start with extreme weather. People ask: What do you mean by extreme weather? I mean, measuring rainfall by feet, not by inches. I am talking about fires in States on the west coast, especially where the amount of land being consumed by the fires is almost the size of my State of Delaware. I am talking about the number of 500-year floods that are occurring every other year or every year. I am talking about the number of category 5 hurricanes that we have now compared to what it was 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago.

According to the latest report--which was, again, released by the Trump administration--climate change will continue to increase and intensify extreme weather events in the years to come. Over the last 3 years alone, extreme weather events have cost the United States nearly $400 billion in damages due to storm surges, due to flooding, due to wildfires, and due to crop freezes and crop droughts. So it has cost the U.S. Treasury $400 billion, and it comes at a time when our budget deficits are going up. The budget deficit picked up between the last administration and this administration, I think, somewhere--maybe $500 billion--a huge amount of money. Last year's deficit on this administration was, as I recall, maybe $750 billion. I am told the expectation for the budget deficit in this year is maybe as much as $950 billion. It wasn't that long ago that the budget for our whole country was less than that.

Why is $400 billion in damages from extreme weather important? We don't have the money. We are borrowing this money, and these young pages and their children will get to pay for that someday. That is not fair.

More powerful and more frequent extreme weather events will increase that figure exponentially and also have far-reaching impacts on people in every corner of this country and well beyond the borders of our country.

Say someone happens to live in the Southwest. In 2017, Phoenix, AZ, set a new record of nearly 200 days with temperatures of at least 90 degrees Fahrenheit. Think about that, Phoenix, AZ, 200 days with temperatures of at least 90 degrees Fahrenheit in 2017. By 2090, Phoenix could be dealing with an additional 45 days--another month and a half--every year, which would be about 245 days, which would be about 8 months out of the year where the temperature in Phoenix is 80 or well above 90. That is another 6 weeks of extreme heat in addition to the city's already recordbreaking temperatures.

Let's say somebody lives in the Southeast. Let's take Charleston, SC, for example. Charleston, SC, experiences 38 days of tidal flooding every year. By 2045, the city could experience 180 days of tidal flooding every year--nearly five times the flooding that occurs today.

Let's say maybe somebody lives out West. By 2050, wildfire seasons could burn up to six times more forest area every year. I will say that again. That is hard to believe. By 2050, wildfire seasons could burn up to six times more forest area every year. We have all seen the historic and horrific devastation that fires in California have caused just this year alone--in fact, in the last several weeks alone, tragic fires.

California is a big State. I used to live there when I was in the Navy. Sometimes it is difficult to put into context just how big and destructive these wildfires are. We have a poster here that I want to refer to as a wildfire poster: This is Washington, DC, and the counties adjacent to Washington, DC. It gives a little bit of context. Here is the area that the recent Camp Fire in California burned in relation to a city that all of us who serve here are pretty familiar with, Washington, DC, and the suburbs of this city. The Camp Fire burned an area over three times greater than Washington, DC. That is how big it was. That is just one fire, in just one State, in 1 year. Imagine what we are going to be facing with up to six times more forest areas burning every single year.

Now, if the extreme weather conclusions don't make some of our colleagues jump to action, maybe the information about the health impacts of climate change will cause them to take some notice. This report makes clear that increases in ozone and particle pollution will result in an additional $26 billion every year in healthcare costs across the country.

Here is a particularly startling statistic: Extreme hot and cold temperatures in 49 U.S. cities are projected to result in more than 9,000 additional premature deaths per year. That is not in a far-off developing nation. That is 9,000 more people dying right here at home in the USA, but if our colleagues are still not swayed by this year's impacts to American health, maybe they will be moved by the impact that climate change will have on our country's already aging infrastructure.

I think this is probably highway transportation infrastructure, if I am not mistaken. If we do not act, we can expect up to $26 billion in damages to our roadways and our railways every year due to climate change--$26 billion in damages to our roadways and our railways every year due to climate change.

We have a poster here. There is a bridge. I am not sure where, but it is one of many bridges. We have thousands of bridges around this Nation. Increases in rainfall in inland areas--not on the coast but in the middle of our country, the heartland--will threaten up to 6,000 bridges by the year 2090.

Here is a statistic we will not be able to avoid. It deals with sea level rise. Since 1993, sea levels have risen by 3 inches. What we are looking at by 2100, according to folks who worked for the last 3 years on this Federal report from 13 Federal Agencies, we could be looking at as much as 6 feet in sea level rise. If we do nothing, by 2100, we could see sea levels rise by up to 6 feet. Those of us who lived through Superstorm Sandy saw the absolute destruction that can be caused by 3 inches of sea level rise. It is almost unimaginable to think about nearly 70 inches.

Maybe that is still not alarming enough to get some people's attention. Perhaps the impacts on our farmers and ranchers might sway my colleagues. Let me mention something in that regard. According to this report--the same Federal report--more frequent and intense rains, combined with rising temperatures, are likely to reduce agriculture production in the Midwest to 1980 levels. Roll back the clock to the levels of production in 1980 in the Midwest--that is where we were.

I have a corn and soybean poster here. When it comes to crops that agricultural communities depend on, such as corn and soybeans, which are big in my State, farmers could see reduced yields of up to 25 percent.

Maybe some of our colleagues don't come from States with a large agricultural sector, where it is important. Perhaps an economic impact might move them to action.

Climate change could mean up to $500 billion in economic losses every year by 2090. Let me say that again. Climate change could mean up to $500 billion in economic losses every year by 2090. Additionally, almost 2 billion labor hours are projected to be lost by 2090 due to the impacts of extreme temperatures. That alone would cost an additional $160 billion in lost wages.

Here is a stark statistic: Climate change could slash up to 10 percent of our gross domestic product by 2100. Let's put that into context. Ten years ago, when we fell into the great recession--worst recession since the Great Depression--we had half of the losses in gross domestic product that we are looking at from climate change that goes unchecked. According to this report, climate change could slash up to 10 percent of our gross domestic product by 2100. That is more than double the losses of the great recession.

Many of our colleagues were here during the great recession. We saw what happened. Unemployment was over 10 percent. Banks basically stopped lending. Access to capital was greatly impeded. Trade slowed down dramatically. It was a miserable time. We fought very hard to get out of it. We are now in the ninth longest running economic expansion in the history of the country, and stuff like this is not going to help extend that recovery. To refuse to act would be to willingly usher in an economic calamity twice as painful as the great recession.

The numbers and facts don't lie. The reality of climate change is scary, especially for coastal States like mine--the lowest lying State in our country. Our State is sinking instead of rising.

The facts that this report so clearly lays out affect all of us. It doesn't matter whether you are from a coastal State, like some of us, or from a landlocked State, like our Presiding Officer--if you care about public health or the environment or if you care about our economy or national security, this report says that every sector of our economy and every person living in this country will be affected by climate change if we do nothing.

As I see it, we have a couple of options. We can take up this fight and get serious about addressing and adapting to climate change, or we can stick our heads in the sand, as some would do, ignore the facts, and do nothing, dooming our children and our grandchildren to live in a world that is less healthy, less safe, less stable, and less economically vibrant. I say, let's fight. My hope is that our colleagues will join us and not fight against one another but fight against this threat we all face.

We have one planet. President Macron from France was down the hall about 2 years ago and spoke to a joint session of Congress. There is no plan B. We have the only planet. It is the one we have been given to take care of by our Heavenly Father, and we need to take that responsibility seriously.

All right. That is the bad news. That is a lot of bad news in 10 minutes. Before I yield to my friend from Florida, I will say this: There is some good news too. The good news is, there are ways to address these challenges--the economic challenges, the agricultural challenges, the flooding challenges, the temperature challenges. There is a way to do it. Among the smart ways to do it is to reduce the emission of carbon in this country.

The good news is, we can do that by adding and creating jobs. Two hundred million people went to work in this country today--roughly 200 million. Three million people went to work in jobs where they are involved in renewable energy, energy conservation--things that help save our planet and preserve the quality of life on our planet. There are a lot more jobs we can add in that kind of work, including building vehicles that run on batteries--and we are making great progress--and vehicles that run on hydrogen and fuel cells. The only waste product from those vehicles is water. You can drink it.

There are ways to address all these threats in a way that is economically viable. We don't have to choose between all this doom and gloom and a strong economy; we can address the doom and gloom and add a lot of jobs, and we ought to do this. It is going to be a win-win. We ought to seize the day.

I thank my colleague from Florida for his patience with me here today. I don't know if I will have a chance to stand here this close with him again before he prepares to head off into the sunset. He and I were privileged to serve together in the House. He was at one time treasurer and insurance commissioner of his State, and I was treasurer of Delaware. We walked the path together for a long time, and he has been a great servant of the people of Florida for many years. I have always been proud to stand next to him, and I am especially proud today.

I am happy to yield to my friend from Florida.

I thank the Senator from South Dakota. I do agree. Today, we are one step closer to getting this

strong bipartisan compromise on vessel discharge legislation signed into law. This bill protects waters across our country from the environmental and economic risk of the spread of invasive species contained in ballast water, while also providing regulatory certainty for vessel owners and mariners. To reach this agreement, my colleagues and I did not settle for what was easy or what was expedient. These improvements in the VIDA title have taken a great deal of time and energy, and they were the right thing to do. Specifically, they will reduce the risks posed by ballast water discharges that enter our waterways, minimize the likelihood of introducing invasive species along our coasts and in the Great Lakes, while still ensuring these discharges are regulated under the Clean Water Act. I know the Senator from South Dakota shares my hope that the President signs this legislation expeditiously. He and I will make sure that the legislative history regarding this provision is clear.

Mr. President, I rise in response to a unanimous consent request from my good friend, the senior Senator from Tennessee, to consider the nomination of John L. Ryder of Tennessee to be a member of the board of directors of the Tennessee Valley Authority, known as TVA. As I mentioned in Mr. Ryder's confirmation hearing, I have long encouraged TVA to be an industry leader in the power sector, not a laggard, especially when it comes to clean energy and energy efficiency. While I am not prepared to object to Mr. Ryder's nomination at this time, I am quite concerned about TVA's handling of the December 2008 Kingston Fossil Fuel Power Plant coal ash spill clean-up efforts and would like to say a few words about my concerns.

Last week, a Federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee found that the contractor used by TVA to clean up the coal ash spill, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc., did not adhere to worker safety or health requirements, potentially causing sickness and death. Although TVA was not on trial, there were troubling testimonies from workers that called into question TVA's conduct during and after the clean-up efforts. The court decision allows for the families of the workers affected to seek compensation for medical treatments and damages. To date, reports show that over 30 Jacobs Engineering Group workers have died since working on the Kingston coal ash clean-up efforts and 250 workers are sick.

In his nomination hearing, I called on Mr. Ryder to commit to ensure TVA is a good actor in regards to the Kingston Fossil Fuel Power Plant coal ash spill and is transparent to the employees and families that are or may be affected by this issue. He promised me he would do so. However, I want Mr. Ryder and my colleagues to be on notice that I will be working on this issue as an oversight matter and will make sure all the members of the TVA board and the entire workforce at TVA are good actors when it comes to this issue. Thank you.

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

Mr. President, I will just start out by saying it is good to see you. It is good to be back. I hope you had a good break.

We have business to do--serious business to do. Before we took our recess around election time, we closed off by passing, I think, a 99- to-1 vote here and a unanimous vote over in the House. It is a major water infrastructure bill that Senator Barrasso and I and our staffs have worked on with a number of our colleagues. We are back here today to do some more good work. I am grateful to everyone who has had a part in that.

I rise in support of the Coast Guard reauthorizing bill and to urge our colleagues to vote yes on the pending cloture motion and on final passage of this legislation tomorrow. Ensuring that our Coast Guard, comprised of nearly 90,000 men and women across our country, has the resources to do its important work is incredibly important.

The Coast Guard was established at the behest of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who is known more recently for the musical, but he was actually behind the establishment of the Coast Guard all those years ago. This is one of his greatest hits, if you will. He played a crucial role in our country, and so has the Coast Guard--including in my State of Delaware--from the very birth of our Nation, and my guess is also in Wisconsin, where our Presiding Officer is from.

Today, we ask this branch of our military to track pollution at sea, to combat illicit trafficking and smuggling, and to protect maritime operations that are expanding throughout our Arctic waters, while still keeping our waters safe for recreational and cargo vessels sailing in places like the Delaware Bay.

The bill before us today will increase resources for the Coast Guard by about 10 percent so they are equipped to continue this important and oftentimes lifesaving work. This legislation also allows for multiyear funding in order to procure future national security cutters, which will reduce costs, increase predictability, and stabilize workforces. It is like a win-win-win.

For a State like mine, which is serious about its recreational boating, the bill would increase safety by implementing engine cut-off switches and alternate signaling devices.

For the Coast Guard contingent based at the Indian River Inlet in Delaware, about halfway between Rehoboth Beach and the Maryland line in Ocean City, this bill means an increase in operational and maintenance funding for personnel and boats, easier access to healthcare for crews and their families, better quality of the life through updated leave policies, extra funding for shoreside infrastructure improvements, and clarity on inspections and enforcement procedures for vessel boardings.

The impacts of this reauthorization bill are real. They will be felt in the Coast Guard contingents across our country. This bill also includes a major win with regard to our shared environment.

Many of our Senate colleagues have invested far more than I have in time and effort to bring greater efficiency and effectiveness to our Nation's management of potentially harmful ballast water discharges from vessels plying our waters. That effort has culminated in the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act--better known as VIDA, as in Vida Blue--which is contained in title IX of the amendment before us.

Specifically, the bill will go a long way toward preventing polluted ballast water discharges from entering our waterways, will minimize the risk of introduction of invasive species in the Great Lakes and other sensitive ecosystems, and will maintain important environmental protections for our waters that are enshrined in the Clean Water Act.

This past April, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on a prior version of this reauthorization bill. Many of our colleagues and I were concerned that the earlier legislation failed to maintain the appropriate roles for the Coast Guard and for EPA.

This new version makes sure that the EPA is responsible for setting vessel discharge standards while the Coast Guard is responsible for approving the technologies that can meet those standards and, thus, allow vessels to operate safely. This is the key. I want to say it again. This new version makes sure that the EPA is responsible for setting vessel discharge standards while the Coast Guard is responsible for approving the technologies that can meet those standards and, thus, allow vessels to operate safely and ultimately to operate efficiently.

As ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am grateful for the excellent work done by the Senator from South Dakota, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Thune, and the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson, the ranking member, and by their able staffs, working with us on this important, bipartisan bill.

My speech here does not mention the Senator from Alaska, Dan Sullivan. It is his birthday today. So I am going to give him a shout- out and say that he and his staff worked on this as well, and we are grateful to them for being our partners.

With the support of our Commerce Committee colleagues and the active participation of many Senators--including our Pacific coast, Great Lakes, and east coast partners--we have strengthened VIDA in substantial ways since our last vote on this legislation in April.

Let me take a minute now and explain how. First of all, we have clarified that the Clean Water Act should govern this important endeavor to keep our waters clean, healthy, and productive, and that the Environmental Protection Agency should take the lead in establishing standards for the discharge of waters polluted by invasive species and other substances from vessels.

This legislation also recognizes the expertise, if you will, and the experience of the Coast Guard and their crews by ensuring that it retains responsibility for determining the best available technology necessary to meet the EPA's discharge standards, while also maintaining maritime safety. In addition, the Coast Guard would assume the primary Federal role in monitoring and enforcing these standards. So there you have it.

As a former Governor--some of my colleagues call me a recovering Governor, which is true--it was critically important to me that we ensure a robust role for States, especially given that the waters in their jurisdictions are the most at risk for invasive species and pollution coming from ships. With that in mind, we have ensured that States maintain a coenforcement responsibility to ensure that these Federal standards are met. The Coast Guard, in close coordination with the States, will establish a set of inspection and enforcement procedures that will ensure a common approach to the States' enforcement of Federal vessel discharge standards and requirements.

We have also required that Governors are consulted in the establishment of discharge standards and that they can act to drive the Federal agencies to issue emergency measures should invasive species appear off their shores.

Governors will also be able to directly petition the EPA and the Coast Guard for stronger national standard and requirements if the science says that they are necessary or the technology has evolved. The EPA and the Coast Guard will be required to respond to a Governor's petition quickly and on the merits, not sidestepping concerns that might be raised.

Should a State find that its waters are threatened despite the protection offered by the national standard, that State can petition the EPA to establish no-discharge zones to protect those vulnerable waters from any vessel discharges or force the EPA to issue emergency orders.

Under this legislation, Great Lakes Governors for the first time have a defined process to adopt stronger requirements and more protective equipment on vessels entering or traveling within the Great Lakes. In addition, a new Aquatic Nuisance Species Program is established that would address the waters of the Great Lakes and Lake Champlain. The bill also creates special ballast water exchange requirements to help ensure the protection of critical Pacific region environments.

Under all circumstances, no future discharge standards, regional requirements, or technology mandates can ever be weaker than the Federal requirements that are in place today. Let me say that again. Under all circumstances, no future discharge standards, regional requirements, or technology mandates can ever be weaker than the Federal requirements that are in place today. Furthermore, no State laws or regulations will be preempted unless and until the new, more proactive, more protective Federal standards and requirements are in place--meaning they are both final and enforceable by the Coast Guard and the States.

This bill contains equal measures of environmental urgency and common sense. It sets clear roles and responsibilities for the Federal agencies involved in implementing it, and it provides certainty and predictability to all who rely on our coastal waters and the Great Lakes to recreate, fish, and carry our cargos.

Many of our colleagues realize that getting to this point has been a multiyear endeavor. In the end, that is what has brought us together--a common appreciation of how important our waters are to our country. No matter how far away from the coast we may live, none of us are untouched in some way by the environment and resources extending from our shores.

Again, let me commend everyone who has helped in ways both large and small to craft the important compromise that is before us today. With its inclusion, we will have a clear path to enacting a much needed Coast Guard reauthorization bill with its strong VIDA provisions. I urge my colleagues to join us in supporting it and by doing so, demonstrating that even on the heels of last week's election, the Senate is still committed to hammering out principled compromises on difficult but important issues like these.

I will close by hearkening back to my days in the U.S. House of Representatives. After I was Treasurer, I served in the House for a while. After that, I served as Governor of my State and then came here to join our colleagues in the Senate. For 10 years I served on the Coast Guard Subcommittee, which was in the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and I had the opportunity to visit Coast Guard facilities not just on the east coast but as far away as Alaska, on Kodiak Island.

I am a retired Navy captain. I spent a lot of time on airplanes and sometimes on ships to understand fairly well the important role that the Coast Guard does. We certainly see that every day on the east coast. We have a huge tourist business on the shores and the beaches of Delaware, and the Coast Guard plays a hugely important role in that endeavor.

Today, we thank and salute--the Navy salutes--the Coast Guard and all of the men and women who are out there doing their job for all of us.

Again, I want to salute especially the three Senators I mentioned earlier: Senator Thune, Senator Nelson, and Senator Sullivan, our birthday boy today, and for a job well done.

Particularly, I want to thank the folks on my staff. I will just mention a couple of names: Christophe Tulou, Andrew Rogers, and MF Repko, who is a leader and the head of our staff on the Environment and Public Works Committee, and our colleagues on the other side on EPW. It is a good team effort.

People say to me all the time back home, and I am sure they say this to our Presiding Officer back in Wisconsin: When are you guys going to get something done?

Senator John Barrasso was just on the floor and spoke briefly to the Presiding Officer. He and I, working with our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, got something big done--the Water Resources Development Act, a big water infrastructure bill that we passed by a big margin, as I said earlier.

As for today's vote--I don't care if you live on the coast or live in the Great Lakes or some other place around the country--we all have a dog in this fight, not just by talking about it or pointing fingers at one another. We are doing something about it, and we are doing it by working together. I am proud of what we have done. I am grateful to everyone who has had a part in that.

With that, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you so much.

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

Mr. President, I don't know what it is like in Alaska, Wyoming, or Tennessee these days, but a lot of times, when I am going home or back and forth, people are saying to me: I wouldn't want your job for all the tea in China.

I say: Well, I actually feel lucky to do this job. They ask: What do you like about it? I say: I like helping people. They say: Really? And they ask for examples.

Today is a good example. One of the best ways to help people is to make sure they have a job. There are a lot of different ways we provide that nurturing environment for job creation and preservation, and one of those ways is in the area of infrastructure. Sometimes an overlooked part of our infrastructure is the one we address directly in the Water Resources Development Act before us today.

Our water infrastructure is actually the forgotten leg on the infrastructure stool. We rightly worry about the infrastructure we can see: our bridges, highways, airports, and railroads, but our Nation's water infrastructure: our pipes, shipping channels, flood control structures, and the infrastructure we don't see, as we have learned, is in desperate need of investment.

Our Nation's drinking water systems, dams, reservoirs, levees, shipping lanes, and ports support and promote economic growth and job creation. These systems provide water for everything from families to agriculture to small businesses. This is infrastructure that Americans rely on every day, and it keeps our economy moving.

America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, the legislation that we will soon be voting on, makes water a priority from coast to coast. As my good friend, the chairman of our committee, John Barrasso, has said, America needs comprehensive water infrastructure legislation that will create jobs, keep communities safe, and make the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA more accessible to stakeholders.

The legislation before the Senate today has received endorsement from industry, from environmental protection groups, and from everything in between. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the National Association of Counties say that this bill drives investment in navigation, flood protection, and ecosystem restoration in communities and that it protects public health and safety and our natural resources. It is critical in helping our communities to build, maintain, and improve this critical infrastructure while growing our national and local economies.

I am here to applaud and thank, once again, our chairman, our staffs, and everyone who has worked on this from Alaska to Wyoming.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of congressional staff who deserve recognition for their work on S. 3021 be printed in the Record.

I yield my time.

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

Mr. President, in a few minutes, hopefully, the Senate will vote to invoke cloture on the motion to concur on the America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018. In preparing to take this vote, I want to remind our colleagues why this bill is so important not just for our country's economy but for our environment as well.

The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Barrasso, will mention shortly that this is a comprehensive bill that supports the Army Corps of Engineers. It supports EPA's drinking water and wastewater programs. It authorizes the Corps to construct, modify, study, and expedite more than 100 water resource development projects. It prepares our country's water infrastructure for extreme weather events to avoid devastation caused by storms like Hurricane Florence by reauthorizing levee and dam safety programs through 2023.

It also establishes programs to make communities more resistant to sea level rise. It reauthorizes, for the first time in 22 years, the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, which provides for needed investments in water and sanitation infrastructure all across our country.

This bill would also nearly double the size of this critical loan program from $1 billion to almost $2 billion by 2021. It expands the existing $60 million annual small and disadvantaged communities program to allow for the testing and treatment of contamination in drinking water systems. It provides schools with the resources needed to address lead contamination.

This bipartisan bill is a major win for families across the country. It passed both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the House unanimously, and I urge my colleagues in the Senate to vote yes on this cloture motion.

Before I yield, I just want to say to my friend Senator Barrasso how proud I have been to work with him. Our staffs are really a model of the way this place should work. We worked well not only with our colleagues on our committee and outside of our committee but also with the folks over in the House of Representatives. I will talk about them later today. To my chairman, it is a real pleasure to work with you on this one.

Mr. President, I rise today, along with the chairman, Senator Barrasso, to further discuss the important piece of infrastructure legislation that he has outlined that will positively affect the States of every Member of this body. I want to encourage each of our colleagues to support it.

Over the course of August and early September, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reached an agreement with our counterparts in the House to advance America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018.

Our chairman, John Barrasso, and I coauthored this bill and did so with the help of the majority and minority staffs of the Environment and Public Works Committee over the better part of this past year. I want to take a moment to thank our chairman, as I have earlier, for his leadership. I want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Infrastructure Subcommittee of EPW, Jim Inhofe and Ben Cardin, for their leadership in producing this critical bipartisan legislation.

I want to thank the members of their staffs and especially the majority and minority member EPW staffs, without whose help this bill would not be before us today. Collectively, you have done a terrific job. I am proud of you. As we say in the Navy, Bravo Zulu, which means ``well done.''

As some of you may recall, the Senate's version of the bill was reported out of the Environment and Public Works Committee unanimously a few months back. On September 13, the bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously on a voice vote.

People back home say to me: Why can't you just work together? Well, in this case, we have, and I think the results speak for themselves. I am hopeful and encouraged that this bill will receive the same strong support in the Senate this week.

In a Congress and a country that are all too often divided, it is refreshing to me and I think to others as well that we have been able to come together to authorize water infrastructure and drinking water programs that are both vital and critical to the American people's way of life.

America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 is a win-win for our Nation's economy and for our environment. This bill should serve as a model for how we can get meaningful legislation done in Congress, and I hope it will serve as a model.

This legislation supports the ongoing work of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It does so by reauthorizing the Corps' program for flood control, for beach and shoreline maintenance, and for the maintenance of inland and coastal waterways through which the goods that enter and depart from American ports travel.

The Corps' Civil Works Program is our Nation's largest and I believe the world's biggest water resources undertaking. This program addresses a wide variety of priorities, including ship navigability; flood risk management; beach and shoreline protection; renewable energy, such as hydropower; water supply; and environmental restoration and stewardship. In fact, over 99 percent of U.S. overseas trade moves through the waterways which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining. Think of that--99 percent.

In fact, this bill supports the Corps' operation and maintenance of 13,000 miles of commercial deep-draft ship channels and 12,000 miles of commercial inland waterways. These ports and waterways serve a combined 40 States and transport much of our country's waterborne cargo.

The new authorizations that this bill provides are critically needed. Much of the infrastructure that the Corps is responsible for across the country now exceeds its useful lifespan. As a result, we have an enormous construction backlog of needed infrastructure investments. The latest estimates from the Army Corps indicate that the overall construction backlog is in the neighborhood of $96 billion, while the annual budget of the Army Corps hovers around $4.6 billion. Think of that--$96 billion on the one hand and $4.6 billion on the other hand. Those two numbers reflect the extraordinary challenge the Army Corps faces--a challenge we begin to address with this legislation. This bill addresses that backlog by providing new tools that will allow the government to partner with the Corps and leverage existing resources to make sure we get the most bang for our buck.

This legislation also increases local participation, transparency, and accountability in developing the Army Corps' annual budget. It is my hope that enhanced local participation will allow for a more transparent and long-term look at the Corps' activities and help build a greater groundswell of support for increased appropriations to fund the agency's initiatives.

The measure before us also authorizes critical Corps of Engineers disaster programs. When disaster strikes, the Federal Government often steps in and helps, as it did last year in Puerto Rico, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, and this year in the Carolinas. A large part of that help is provided by the Army Corps of Engineers--something that may come as a surprise to Americans who don't realize the critical role the Corps plays in responding to all sorts of emergencies.

In addition, this bill includes new authorities to help protect communities and ecosystems in coastal States like Delaware and Maryland and States across our country from some of the worst impacts of extreme weather events. This measure includes provisions that allow communities to recover more quickly, too, when disaster does strike and facilitates rebuilding facilities in ways that are more resilient to future storms.

This legislation also makes key changes in emergency response, post- disaster recovery, and resiliency efforts so that the Army Corps thinks long-term instead of short-term when it selects solutions that it will implement. But the bill goes even further. It enables the Corps to pursue the best possible solutions to make communities more resistant to storm damage, whether those solutions are a traditionally constructed levee or a natural alternative, like the reconstructed dunes we are using along the Delaware coast and other places too.

Earlier this year, NOAA announced that the total cost for extreme weather and climate events in 2017 exceeded $300 billion. That is a new U.S. annual record--$300 billion in 1 year, last year. It is not a matter of if the next extreme weather event is coming, it is a matter of when. As storm events, such as Hurricane Florence, grow more powerful and prevalent, threatening American lives and infrastructure, the passage of this bill--a bill that will help protect coastal communities from the risk of flooding--has never been more important.

In addition to strengthening key Corps programs, this bill also addresses key programs at EPA for major drinking water and wastewater needs across our country. For the first time in over 20 years, this bill reauthorizes the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, too. That program provides Federal assistance to help communities with clean drinking water. It does so through no-interest, low-interest, and

forgivable loans that help communities in a variety of ways gain access to capital that would otherwise be unavailable. It is my hope that one day we can eventually add grants back into this program for communities that need the help the most, but that is probably a longer conversation somewhere down the line.

The ongoing crisis in Flint that we are now seeing play out in far too many communities across our country is tragic but avoidable if we invest in water infrastructure more wisely. This bill makes it clear that we have learned our lesson, and we are beginning to take some steps to address this enormous challenge.

Some of our colleagues may recall that earlier this year Senator Duckworth and I hosted a drinking water roundtable here on Capitol Hill. The image of her holding up in her hand a baby bottle with formula made from contaminated drinking water is an image that is hard for me to forget.

This bill authorizes more resources for EPA to make sure that every parent, no matter what their ZIP Code is, where they live, can be confident that the water coming out of the tap at home or at their children's school is safe for their kids to drink. Toward that end, this legislation not only reauthorizes the safe drinking water revolving loan program, it nearly doubles its funding. By fiscal year 2021, the program will grow from the current authorization of $1 billion to almost $2 billion.

Perhaps most notably, especially in light of the avoidable devastation and tragedy we saw in the wake of Hurricanes Maria and Harvey, this bill authorizes $100 million to repair drinking water systems damaged by storms and creates a new program that helps protect drinking water systems from extreme weather events.

This legislation allows States that detect contaminants in drinking water to provide assistance to residents who depend on private water wells. This provision should matter to every Member of Congress whose residents rely significantly on wells for their water consumption needs, and we have them in every single State across America. I don't know about other States, but one in six Delawareans depends on private wells for their drinking water. It is not fair that if contaminants end up in their water through no fault of the resident, the resident has to find a way to rectify that situation on their own. Without this bill, these taxpayers get no support, and that is not right.

This bill goes way beyond addressing emergency situations. It provides a framework for updating and expanding water infrastructure systems throughout our country at both the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill authorizes $50 million for technical assistance to help schools and daycare centers deal with lead contamination in their drinking water and another $5 million per year in grants for modernizing, testing, and replacing the lead components that are causing the water contamination. This provision is going to be particularly helpful in places like Chicago and Baltimore, where there are schools operating with no usable drinking water fountains.

Oftentimes, our water infrastructure is the forgotten leg of the infrastructure stool. We rightly worry about the infrastructure we can see, such as bridges, highways, airports, and railroads, but our water infrastructure--our pipes, shipping channels, flood control structures; the infrastructure we don't see but rely on every day--is also in desperate need of investment in many parts of America.

Before I yield the floor today, I want to again thank our chairman, Senator Barrasso, and our Senators from Maryland and Oklahoma who are the cochairs of the Infrastructure Subcommittee of Environment and Public Works and other members of our committee and frankly those who are not fortunate enough to serve on our committee. I thank them for their hard work throughout this process.

I thank our colleagues over in the House--Congressmen Shuster, DeFazio, Walden, and Pallone--who were great partners of ours. When we work together as Democrats and Republicans in both Chambers, we are stronger, and when we are stronger here, we are stronger across our country.

Finally, I thank the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, R.D. James, who has made this legislation a priority for the Army Corps and for the administration. He and his team worked with us to craft a bill that I think we can all be proud of, and I am.

I want to mention again that as smart as John Barrasso and I and the other Senators who serve on our committee and here in the Senate are, this bill wouldn't be before us if we didn't have some very smart people on our staffs. One is sitting right here next to me today, and some others are standing behind me. I see over on the Republican majority side some terrific members of staff who work under the leadership of our chairman. I want to take a moment to take my hat off--I wish I were wearing my hat. If I were, I would take it off to all of you, as well.

Let me end today with an African proverb that I think is particularly relevant. It goes something like this: If you want to go fast, travel alone. If you want to go far, travel together.

By working together, we crafted legislation that is both substantive and needed. This proposal stands as a timely example of how we can set aside our differences and get meaningful work done for the people who sent us here and expected us to accomplish really important things like this on their behalf.

The underlying bill before us is one that delivers a lot of good to the American people. At the same time, it represents good public policy that is fiscally responsible. It is deserving of the support of our colleagues in the Senate. I hope they will join us in supporting its passage.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, good afternoon. I rise today to address the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court.

As we all know, the stakes are always high when this Chamber vets and debates and votes to confirm any of the President's Supreme Court nominees, as they should be. This is, as we know, the highest Court in our land. The job comes with a lifetime appointment--not 2 years, like they have in the House of Representatives; not 4 years, like the President; not 6 years, as we have--a lifetime. As we know, looking at one of the Justices on the Supreme Court who is, I think, now 85 years old, that could be a long, long time.

Those who serve on the Supreme Court make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans almost every day. That is precisely why we expect Presidents to look for the best and brightest candidates possible. That is why the vetting process in the Senate should be serious and thoughtful. That is why nominees should strive to be above reproach. Indeed, we all should strive to be above reproach. This absolutely should be one of the toughest job interviews around because the stakes surrounding any Supreme Court seat are just that high.

The stakes surrounding the seat vacated by Justice Kennedy may be even higher. The next Justice may shift the balance of our Nation's highest Court for a generation, maybe even longer. The next Justice may very well be asked to rule on questions of Executive power that test our democracy.

We are fooling ourselves if we refuse to acknowledge that the stakes are so high in large part because this Chamber has yet to reckon with the grave injustice that was done to Merrick Garland and to our Constitution in 2016.

As many will recall, Judge Garland, who serves as the chief judge of the DC Circuit Court--the highest Federal appeals court in our land-- was nominated by President Obama over 2 years ago to fill the seat held by the late Justice Scalia on the Supreme Court. Shamefully, he was denied any kind of consideration by this body. He waited 293 days for a hearing and a vote that never came. Most Republican Senators refused to even meet with him. A good man was treated badly, and so was our Constitution.

The unprecedented obstruction our Republican colleagues mounted against Judge Garland was a shameful chapter of the U.S. Senate. I am still deeply troubled by those 293 days. I know some of my colleagues are as well. It is likely that I will continue to be troubled by them for the rest of my life.

We may never agree which side pulled the pin out of the grenade, but we must all recognize that this institution will never be the same if stealing Supreme Court seats and creating one set of rules for Democratic Presidents and another set for Republican Presidents is the new norm.

Despite the injustice done to Merrick Garland, Judge Gorsuch was ultimately confirmed last year--on a bipartisan basis, I might add.

When Justice Kennedy retired earlier this year, President Trump nominated, as we know, Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill that seat. More than 12 years ago, I met with Judge Kavanaugh in my office here in the Capitol when the Senate considered his nomination to the

DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Back in 2006, I voted my hopes over my fears. Unfortunately, over the last decade, many of my worst fears have come true.

I believe that Judge Kavanaugh's extreme record on the bench that has unfolded over the past dozen years stands in stark contrast to the views of most Americans on too many important issues. For example, Americans overwhelmingly support protection for those living with preexisting conditions. Brett Kavanaugh ruled against upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2011. That is why we expected he would side with conservative Justices if and when cases like Texas v. United States come before the Court. If he does, the ACA's protection for people with preexisting conditions will be invalidated for tens of millions of Americans.

Speaking of healthcare, Americans overwhelmingly support women having the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions. Brett Kavanaugh, while working in the Bush White House in 2003, wrote an internal memo stating that Roe v. Wade may not be considered ``settled law of the land'' because the Supreme Court ``can always overrule its precedent.''

Americans also overwhelmingly support independent checks on Executive power. We believe no one in America is above the law. Yet Brett Kavanaugh, in a July 2009 Minnesota Law Review article, wrote that Congress should pass a law to exempt a sitting President from criminal prosecution or investigation. When I learned of this, my reaction was: You have got to be kidding. Apparently, he was not kidding. Ironically, that declaration came 11 years after Brett Kavanaugh played a key role in drafting the Starr Report, which laid out grounds for impeachment of then-President Bill Clinton.

The greatest threat Brett Kavanaugh may pose to this country and its people is with respect to our environment. In all my years, I have yet to meet anyone who doesn't want to make sure we have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. A review of Judge Kavanaugh's nearly 300 opinions over the last 12 years, both concurrencies and dissents, shows Judge Kavanaugh has voted to weaken or block environmental protections a staggering 89 percent of the time. In fact, Judge Kavanaugh has never dissented in a case that would weaken environmental protections and admitted as much in his response to questions for the record from Senators Feinstein and Harris. In other words, almost 9 out of 10 times, he has sided with those who weaken environmental protections over those who would strengthen it.

I fear that if confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could well turn out to be the next Scott Pruitt. We remember him. However, unlike former EPA Administrator Pruitt, whose tenure ended finally after 18 tortuous months, Brett Kavanaugh could damage our environment for a quarter century or more if he serves on the Supreme Court.

For example, just last year, Scott Pruitt's attempt to delay rules limiting methane emissions from oil and gas drilling was challenged in the DC Circuit Court, where Judge Kavanaugh now serves. In that case, Judge Kavanaugh sided with Scott Pruitt and the fossil fuel industry, voting against his colleagues who found Pruitt's delay illegal.

Judge Kavanaugh also attempted to severely limit EPA's authority to regulate toxic emissions and greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. In 2012, he blocked the air pollution restrictions that covered nearly half of our country, endangering thousands of lives. This is especially concerning to those of us who live in downward States like Delaware, where over 90 percent of our air pollution comes from dirty emissions in States to our west that drift across our borders.

When I was Governor, I could have shut down my State, taken every car, truck, van off the road, shut down every business, and we would have still been out of compliance for clean air requirements because of the upwind States putting their pollution up in the air, and it is simply blowing to Delaware or Maryland or New Jersey or any other State that happens to live along America's tailpipe on the east coast.

Strictly based on Judge Kavanaugh's environmental record on the bench over the past 12 years, I was prepared to vote no on his nomination many weeks ago. Then last week the Senate and much of our country was riveted by compelling and, I believe, powerful testimony from a private citizen and a victim, Dr. Christine Ford. She came forward to share the most dramatic experience of her life.

She stepped forward despite the serious threats it posed for both her and her family--death threats, having to move out of her house. She testified despite being terrified. She did so despite being unsure that her story would make any difference at all. She did so because she said it was her civic duty to share the truth. She showed a whole lot of courage.

Like many of my colleagues, I have been contacted by sexual assault survivors since Dr. Ford's testimony who have been inspired to come forward and share their stories. It serves as further proof that this problem is not only underreported but that men and women who are victims of sexual assault can and do bury this trauma, not for weeks, not for months, not for years but for decades.

Some of our Republican colleagues have acknowledged that Dr. Ford's testimony was credible, but despite her credibility, they say they don't see her testimony as reason enough to deny Judge Kavanaugh a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. They say they don't have enough evidence to believe her. Instead, they painted this as something of a he said, she said situation involving young people.

Well, let's look at what he said then. Last week, Judge Kavanaugh, who currently sits on our Nation's second highest court, came before the Senate and unleashed a torrent of unbelievably partisan attacks. I have never seen anything like it in testimony before any committee I have served on or known of.

He claimed that the allegations against him were fueled by ``pent-up anger about Trump and the 2016 election.'' He went so far as to say the claims were merely ``revenge on behalf of the Clintons.'' He threatened Democratic Members saying: ``What goes around comes around.''

There is an old saying, adversity does not build character, it reveals it. Well, that day, Judge Kavanaugh revealed himself to be a partisan during that hearing. After witnessing the vitriol Judge Kavanaugh spewed, how could any left-leaning cause think they would ever possibly get a fair shake from him should their case come before the Supreme Court? His temperament was clearly unbecoming of a judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is, it seems clear Judge Kavanaugh was willing to be so brazenly partisan in order to appeal to an audience of one watching the proceedings from 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Judge Kavanaugh's testimony last week also raised additional questions regarding his truthfulness. For weeks, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, including Senators Durbin and Senator Leahy, raised serious concerns that Judge Kavanaugh may have misled the Judiciary Committee about the extent of his role in the Bush administration helping several controversial judicial nominees navigate the Senate confirmation process.

Judge Kavanaugh may have also misled the Judiciary Committee about the extent of his role in the Bush administration helping shape several controversial decisions in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, including warrantless wiretapping and the rights of enemy combatants.

During his most recent hearing about the allegations brought forward by Dr. Ford, Judge Kavanaugh answered several questions about his younger days in ways that were, at best, misleading and, at worst, lies under oath. Judge Kavanaugh's less-than-truthful answers on matters large and small point to a troubling pattern and raise serious questions about his credibility.

Even if my Republican colleagues don't want to believe Dr. Ford, and even if they agree with Judge Kavanaugh's judicial record, the fact that he came before this body and so brazenly misled our fellow Senators should, I believe, by itself be disqualifying.

Before coming to the Senate, I was privileged to serve, as you may recall, as Governor of Delaware for 8 years. In that role, I nominated dozens of men and women to serve as judges in several courts of national prominence--including the Delaware Supreme Court,

the Delaware Superior Court, and the Delaware Court of Chancery, to name a few. While the roles of those courts differed, the qualities I looked for in my judicial nominees were similar. I looked for men and women who were bright. I looked for men and women who knew the law. I looked for men and women who had good judgment, who are able and willing to make a decision, including a difficult decision. I looked for men and women with a strong work ethic. I didn't want to nominate somebody for tribunal chairman so I could watch them retire on the job.

I looked for nominees who were collegial and able to build consensus in courts that had a larger panel, but there were three qualities that were most important to me: judicial temperament, impartiality--treating everyone before them fairly and not showing partiality--and, finally, truthfulness.

In fact, in my first term as Governor, I denied a sitting Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court the opportunity to serve an additional 12- year term because he lacked appropriate judicial temperament. I am told that was unprecedented, but his judicial temperament and what I thought was appropriate were not one and the same.

It gives me no joy to say what I am about to say, but the temperament Judge Kavanaugh exhibited at the Judiciary Committee last week was not just unacceptable for a Supreme Court Justice, it would be unacceptable for a judge in Delaware serving on the Delaware Court of Common Pleas.

Last week, in an effort to actually get to the truth and ensure that body could have all the facts before taking such an important and consequential vote, my Delaware colleagues and I called for the FBI to conduct a nonpartisan investigation. Unfortunately, what we ended up with falls far short of what the Senate deserves and certainly what the American people deserve.

What we got was a process that was certainly not designed to inform. If this process was designed to inform, the White House and Republicans would have actually allowed the FBI to speak to the more than 40 individuals whose names Dr. Ford and Ms. Ramirez submitted as people who could potentially corroborate their accounts. The FBI never talked to any of those people.

If this were a process designed to inform, the dozens of individuals who contacted the FBI to share potentially helpful accounts and information would have received calls in response to those concerns; they did not.

If this process were designed to inform, the White House and Senate Republicans would have allowed the FBI to expand the scope of this investigation; they did not.

If this process were designed to inform the majority leader, he would have at least waited to schedule a vote on Brett Kavanaugh's nomination until after we received and read the FBI report; he did not.

Sadly, this process has been a sham from the start. I know our Presiding Officer is proud to hail from the State of Louisiana. I am equally proud to hail from the First State. As you may know, we are called the First State because we were the first State to ratify the U.S. Constitution--the longest living, most emulated Constitution in the history of the world.

One of the fundamental reasons our Constitution and our democracy has endured is because of the intricate system of checks and balances our Founding Fathers crafted just up the road in Philadelphia some 231 years ago.

The process we have been through in the last several weeks, unfortunately, makes a mockery of that system of checks and balances. I believe we all must recognize that, to use the majority leader's words, ``plowing through'' with Judge Kavanaugh's nomination will diminish the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution that stays above the political fray. In fact, confirming Judge Kavanaugh will enshrine doubt in every controversial 5-to-4 decision in our moving forward from this time. It also calls into question the legitimacy of us, of this very Chamber.

Let me say to my colleagues who are still wavering on Judge Kavanaugh's nomination--and I will leave you with this--that we will not only be judged by voters this November; we will be judged by history. We say that a lot. Sometimes it is trite and overstated. In this case, it is not. We are going to be judged by history in this regard.

I would implore each of you who is still thinking this through, who is trying to figure out what is the right thing to do, to show that we are still worthy of being called the world's greatest deliberative body. Let's show that we have made progress since 1991 in a previous Supreme Court nomination-confirmation episode. Let's show that we are willing to take a stand and do the right thing because if we are not, any short-term political wins will be forever eclipsed by the permanent stain left on our legacy in this body from which there may be no recovery.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, how am I recorded?

Carper votes no.

Mr. President, along with Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester of Delaware, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on the life of LCDR James J. Connell, of Wilmington, DE. J.J. passed away on January 14, 1971, at the age of 32, at the hands of Vietnamese guards during the Vietnam war after being held as a POW. In life and death, J.J. epitomized the best of the country's selfless citizens who put their lives on the line during the Vietnam war. His service exemplifies the unwavering courage, devotion to duty, and honor that he had and reminds us all of how good we can be.

J.J. Connell was born on May 6, 1939, in Wilmington, DE, attending Salesianum High School until 1957. Following this, he graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy on June 7, 1961, after having spent some time in Congress as a page. By 1962, he was designated as a naval aviator. After additional training, he was assigned as a flight instructor at NAAS Whiting Field, FL. He then served with Attack Squadron 55 aboard the USS Ticonderoga, then at NAS Lemoore, CA, until deploying on the USS Ranger on December 1964. After 7 months of combat, he was shot down over North Vietnam on July 15, 1966. Though he only sustained minor injuries, rescue efforts were impossible in the high-threat area he landed in, and consequently, he was captured.

J.J. was captured by the North Vietnamese at a time when U.S. prisoners were declared as criminals and subjected to brutal conditions such as isolation, beatings, starvation, and other means of torture. Despite the heinous means of brutal force the Vietnamese used, J.J. refused to fold under pressure, demonstrating courage and determination beyond his years. He was in captivity for 1,645 days before his death, with his remains returning to the United States on March 6, 1974. He left behind two children who would never know their father and a wife who had previously waited years hoping that J.J. would return home alive.

Though it seems that time may have forgotten J.J. Connell, it is imperative that we remember the hard work and dedication he put into protecting our country and keeping it safe. Posthumously, he was awarded with the Navy Cross, the second highest award for valor after the Medal of Honor and the highest award of valor presented to any Delawarean during the Vietnam war. J.J. was a true hero, and is an inspiration to us all even today.

Along with Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, I wish to commemorate J.J., to celebrate his life, and to offer his family our deepest sympathy on their tragic loss.

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

Mr. President, I rise today with a number of my colleagues to speak out against the Trump administration EPA's dirty power plan--a

proposal to replace the Obama administration's Clean Power Plan. This proposal from this administration fails in at least two aspects: First, it fails to address climate change, and second, it will put Americans' health at risk.

Millions of American children are heading back to school in my State and in your State and in States across the country this week and next week. All three of my children are grown, but not so long ago, we were sending them off to school, helping them with their homework, and making sure they were getting good grades. As far as we know, they never brought home any failing grades. However, I can't say the same for the Trump administration with respect to this latest proposal.

A friend of mine recently said: ``If corruption were a class, the Trump administration would be getting an A-plus.'' Well, in just about everything else--especially public health and economics--the Trump administration continues to fail the American people almost every day. It is clear this administration needs to do a little remedial work, maybe take some courses again, especially in basic science.

Let's be clear. The science behind climate change is settled. It is over. Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a growing threat to America, and it is getting worse every year. Climate change is leading to rising global temperatures, rising sea levels, and more intense and frequent weather events. NOAA tells us that extreme weather events costing $1 billion or more have doubled in frequency over the past decade, with $425 billion in losses having occurred over the last 5 years alone.

It is now hard to find a part of our country that isn't being affected in some way by climate change. We see the examples almost everywhere. Not too far from my home in Delaware is a place called Ellicott City, MD.

My wife visited there with a bunch of her friends from the DuPont Company. They are all retired now, and they wanted to go visit there and actually support the local economy in Ellicott City, the local people who have been through just terrible devastation. In the last 2 years alone, two 1,000-year floods have devastated Ellicott City, MD, just north of Washington, DC. There have been two 1,000-year floods in the last 2 years.

Forest fires fueled by extreme heat and drought continue to ravage States like Montana, California, and Oregon.

Since we started keeping records, only 49 category 5 hurricanes have threatened the United States. That is since we started keeping records, and I think we have been keeping records for maybe a century. Three of those 49 category 5 hurricanes occurred in the last year. Think of that. Out of 49 category 5 hurricanes since we have been keeping track--and I think it has been a century--3 of those were in the last year. Right now, one of those is threatening the people of Hawaii.

I can go on and on and on. Make no mistake--it is costing Americans in the form of lost income, lost livelihoods, and sadly, in some cases, lost lives.

As someone who proudly represents the lowest lying State in the Nation--Delaware--climate change is not a science lecture for us; it affects my constituents daily. For us, this issue is intensely personal. That is why for my entire career in the Senate, I have fought to find ways to move us away from fossil fuels and reduce carbon pollution. It started in 2002, when I introduced one of the first bills in Congress to cap carbon emissions from coal-fired powerplants.

The good news is that we have made some progress in this country. That is in part due to the large investments that the Obama administration and Congress made over the last decade in clean energy. It is also due in part to smart regulations, such as the Clean Power Plan. I proudly supported those efforts, and I still do.

In addition, many companies across our Nation have stepped up, and they deserve some credit. Making real investments in clean energy has turned out to be the right thing and to be a wise investment, demonstrating that it is possible once again to do well and do good at the same time.

As a result of these actions, in the last decade, our country rebounded from one of its greatest economic downturns in history. We lowered energy costs, reduced air pollution, and added 16 million new jobs during the Obama administration. We also launched the longest running economic expansion in the history of our country, which continues to this day.

We have a chart here that shows that since 1970, the United States has cut common air pollutants by almost 75 percent, while the U.S. GDP has grown by over 200 percent.

Instead of building on the Obama administration's forward-looking environmental standards, this administration has taken pride in tearing the protections apart. This administration's so-called affordable clean energy proposal fails to provide industry with the certainty needed to make clean energy investments for the future, while also providing an uncertain future for generations to come.

People say, at least where I am from and maybe in North Carolina--my wife is from North Carolina, and she tells me they say this in North Carolina as well. You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. No matter what EPA calls this proposal, by the Agency's own account, it doesn't achieve affordable energy or clean energy, and it definitely doesn't address climate change. The EPA's proposal, which I think might more appropriately be called the dirty power plan, is instead another step by this administration to dismantle the Nation's environmental protections and protect polluters over the public.

If I were to grade the EPA's proposal to replace the Clean Power Plan, I would not give it an A, and I would not give it a B, a C, or a D. I might well give it an F. I take no joy in saying that, but that is the way--calling balls and strikes, that is pretty much what I would call it.

A friend of mine--maybe you have a friend like this, too, Mr. President--a friend of mine, when we ask him how he is doing, sometimes responds with these words: ``Compared to what?'' When compared against the Clean Power Plan, using EPA's own numbers, it is easy to see the dirty power plan's shortcomings.

Let's start with the Clean Power Plan. We have a chart here that says that ``the Clean Power Plan would create $54 billion per year in public health and climate benefits.''

Compare that to the dirty power plan. We have another chart. This one indicates--and this is EPA's own analysis. This is not my analysis, not the Democratic Party's analysis; this is EPA's own analysis of Trump's Clean Power Plan replacement. What happens to smog? It goes up. What happens to soot? It goes up. What happens to mercury? It goes up. What happens to carbon pollution? It goes up. How about premature deaths per year? Well, they go up. By a couple? By 100? By 1,000? No, no. Up to 1,400 premature deaths per year.

That is enough for me to say no thank you and to give the dirty power plan a failing grade, but there is more. The Clean Power Plan would reduce household energy prices by $85 a year through energy efficiency investment. The Clean Power Plan also provides long-term certainty for U.S. businesses, helping American companies make smart investments at home and compete in the global clean energy market. The dirty power plan does not help consumers save money on energy costs, does not provide businesses with certainty, and instead will likely cede clean energy jobs to places like--you guessed it--China.

Let's recap. When we compare the dirty power plan over there in red to the Clean Power Plan here in green--cleaner air? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Saving lives? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Job creation? The clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Energy savings? Again, the clear winner is the Clean Power Plan. Safer climate? Again, the Clean Power Plan. Where I come from, we call that running the table. That is why, in my class, if I were the teacher, if I were assigning grades, this dirty power plan would not get an A, B, C, or D; it would get a failing grade.

Let's be honest. EPA's dirty power plan proposal is not a climate change replacement, it is a retreat. Let me say that again. EPA's dirty power plan proposal from this administration is not a climate change replacement; it is a retreat. It is a retreat from EPA's most basic responsibilities to ensure breathable air. It is a retreat as well from EPA's most basic responsibility to

usher in economic progress and tackle the greatest environmental crisis that I think we face on this planet of ours.

The Clean Power Plan, with its long-term certainty and flexibility structure, is the Federal policy that moves us in the right direction and fulfills EPA's legal and scientific obligations to address climate pollution. Repealing the Clean Power Plan and replacing it with a proposal as ill-conceived as the dirty power plan will have serious consequences for the health of the public, our economy, and this planet with which we are entrusted.

The American people deserve better than a dirty power plan, plain and simple. My colleagues and I are going to do everything in our power to make sure that happens.

Let me close with this real quick. I see some of my colleagues are waiting to speak. I would say maybe 10 years or so ago, one of my colleagues--I think it was either George Voinovich or Lamar Alexander-- was working on legislation to address four air pollutants: sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and carbon dioxide. We offered legislation in response to the George W. Bush administration's proposal. Those affiliated with SOx, NOX, and mercury-- sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, and mercury--called the Bush administration's proposal Clear Skies. Pretty clever. We added to that carbon dioxide. We called our proposal Really Clear Skies.

I remember having a meeting in my office about a decade ago. In my office, we had my colleague, my Republican cosponsor, and we also had representatives from six, seven, eight, nine utilities from all over the country debating and discussing whether Clear Skies, the Bush proposal, or Really Clear Skies, our proposal, made more sense. I will never forget what one utility CEO said at the end of the discussion. He might have been from North Carolina. He was from someplace down South. He said: Senators, here is what you should do. Tell us what the rules are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way. That is what he said. I will never forget that: Tell us what the rules will be with respect to air emission, give us a reasonable amount of time, some flexibility, and get out of the way.

I think that is what the Clean Power Plan did. We need to get back a lot closer to that proposal. I think it actually mirrors and reflects the advice we received a decade ago.

My time has expired. I thank my colleagues for their patience.

I am happy to yield to the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Flake.