Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned to convene for a pro forma session only, with no business being conducted, at 9:25 a.m. on Friday, March 15; that when the Senate adjourns on Friday, it stand adjourned until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, March 19; that on Tuesday, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that upon the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Berner nomination postcloture; further, that if any nominations are confirmed during Tuesday's session, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen on Wednesday, March 20.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of my friend from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes prior to the vote.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to override President Biden's veto on S.J. Res. 38, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Biden administration's phase-in of ``Buy American'' requirements for electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

We continue to see almost daily reminders that our planet is on fire. Scientists tell us we are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and avoid the worst of the climate crisis. The world is looking to the

United States for leadership right here on this floor.

If we override the veto of the President, Senator Rubio's resolution would undermine domestic production of EV chargers. This resolution would create greater uncertainty for our domestic EV charging industry, directly contradicting our goal of having this equipment made and assembled right here in America. That is why groups like the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers oppose the Rubio resolution. It would mean shipping jobs overseas instead of building our supply chain right here at home.

This resolution would actually weaken ``Buy American'' requirements. It would result in more EV charging projects being built overseas, not less. It would undermine American workers and our Nation's ability to be global leaders in electric vehicles.

Put simply, a vote to override the veto is a vote against American manufacturing of EV chargers.

That is why I oppose this resolution and encourage my colleagues to do so as well. Thirty-five percent of our emissions in this country for global warming come from our mobile sources--35 percent. It is imperative we continue to work on that and go after that as our target.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Veto Message

Madam President, I rise today in support of Joe Goffman's nomination to serve as Assistant Administrator for EPA's Office of Air and Radiation.

At the end of last year, I joined several of our colleagues to discuss our recent delegation trip to Dubai for the annual United Nations climate conference, known as COP28. While on the ground, our message to the world was clear: The United States is again leading the global effort to attack the climate crisis.

That leadership is thanks in no small part to the Biden administration's work to implement the unprecedented climate and clean energy investments that many of us here on this floor helped to enact into law. It is also thanks to the historic action by the Environmental Protection Agency to rein in climate pollution in a way that supports economic growth and job creation.

Still, meeting our Nation's climate goals, reducing harmful air pollution, and supporting good-paying, clean energy jobs requires having the right leadership in place.

As I have said before many times on this floor, the Office of Air and Radiation has an outside impact on our lives, and the American people deserve someone leading this office who is committed to carrying out its mission. That includes reducing climate pollution, while also improving our vehicle emissions standards and protecting public health--all of which go hand in hand with economic growth and job creation.

Mr. Goffman has proven that he is up to the task. Under his direction, the EPA has made significant progress in implementing many of the programs that we secured in the Inflation Reduction Act. That includes programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to help lower energy costs for all Americans.

From the earliest days of his career serving on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which I am now privileged to chair, to his time at EPA under President Obama and now President Biden, Joe Goffman has dedicated his life's work to cleaning up the air that we breathe and protecting our one and only planet. He is thoughtful, he is principled, and he is humble. I know those things because Joe has served as chief counsel of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which I am now privileged to chair.

Importantly, he has followed and continues to follow the law, and he does so in a way that also provides certainty and predictability for the industry.

Joe Goffman is also committed to fair outcomes, and that is because he cares about doing things the right way while listening to the concerns of all who might be impacted by changes to our Nation's clean air standards. Don't just take my word for it. Over 50 groups representing a broad coalition of interests, from--oh my, what a wide group, and I will mention them in a minute--they voiced their support for Joe Goffman's confirmation to serve as EPA's Assistant Administrator.

Here is just a sample of the breadth of the groups that are supporting his nomination: National Resources Defense Council, the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, and the National Wildlife Federation. That is to name a few. Just as importantly, though, key industry partners, such as the Edison Electric Institute and the Renewable Fuels Association, support Joe Goffman's nomination. Finally, Joe Goffman's nomination has the support of some of our Nation's largest labor unions, and they include the AFL-CIO and the United Steelworkers. Even the United Mine Workers of America, our Nation's largest union of coal miners, has voiced its support for Mr. Goffman's nomination. A coalition this broad does not happen every day and certainly not on this floor, and it bears testimony to Joe's character and his commitment to doing what is right.

Let me close, if I could, by saying that Joe Goffman, I believe, is the right person to lead EPA's Office of Air and Radiation during this critical time for our Nation. I am confident that he will excel in this important role, in part because he is already doing the job. I do not doubt that Joe will be considerate, he will be courteous, and he will be inclusive as he develops EPA's rules to reduce harmful pollution, clean up the air we breathe, and protect America's health and well- being.

With that, I want to urge our colleagues to join me and to join us, I hope, in supporting Mr. Goffman's nomination so that he can continue serving the Nation. He will not disappoint us in the confidence we have placed in him.

With that, I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the scheduled vote occur immediately.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, I want to thank my colleague, who has joined me here on the floor this evening, for his service to our country.

Like him, I was just a pup. I was 17 years old when I raised my right hand and took an oath to defend our country and Constitution as a midshipman in the Navy; and there were lots of midshipmen at the height of the Vietnam war. I went on to repeat that oath, gosh, a dozen or more times in Active Duty and in Reserve duty through the heart of the Cold War and right up to today. I took the same oath here not too many years ago. It is an oath I take seriously, and I know my colleagues do as well.

I have had the opportunity to travel to the borders of our country south of us and to any number of countries south of Mexico, all the way down to Colombia. And I have a pretty good idea why people, especially from that part of the world, have come here or have sought to come to this country in enormous numbers. Among the reasons they come here is that we are addicted to drugs--drugs that are, in many cases, trafficked to countries to the south of us. People end up living lives of misery because of our addiction to drugs, illegal drugs. The folks who live down there want to live in a place where they can have their children get an education and have access to healthcare and freedom from crime and corruption. That is what they are interested in, and because of our addiction to drugs, we have helped to make the situation worse for them.

On top of that, the poverty that is facing a bunch of places down in Central America, especially, is made worse because of drought--drought which has been caused, as our Presiding Officer knows, because of the reliance in this country on greenhouse gases, on creating greenhouse gases, which have put so many other places, including countries south of us, in harm's way.

But the challenges at our border today are the results of any number of things: the global pandemic, increased violence, corruption, authoritarian government rule, and on and on. These are issues that we have sought to help address for as long as I can remember.

Under numerous Secretaries of Homeland Security and administrations of both parties, I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Homeland Security for the 22 years that I have been in this Senate. I have had the privilege of leading the committee as chairman of the committee for a number of years, and I have led congressional delegations, bipartisan congressional delegations, to the areas south of us. This illegal immigration that we are seeing in the south of our country is unacceptable and unsustainable. And anyone who says it is otherwise, I think, is mistaken. The question is, What do we do about it?

I have known Ali Mayorkas for the better part of a dozen years. He is a good and decent man with a wonderful family--a wife, children--and is someone who deserves our thanks, not the back of our hand. None of us are perfect; God knows I am not. And, certainly, he has made mistakes, but if you talk to the people who are actually involved in the negotiations, the bipartisan negotiations, they are trying to find a solution with respect to the border as part of the supplemental appropriations legislation. If you talk to the

people who are involved--to the Democrats and Republicans who are involved--and ask them about how helpful or harmful has been the involvement of Ali Mayorkas, he has been very much involved in those conversations. What I have heard off the record from our colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, is that he has actually played a constructive role and a helpful role, and I hope that he will continue to do that.

If I had a magic wand, with one fell swoop, I would do one thing to help address illegal immigration: I would enact full comprehensive immigration reform. Next Monday, I will be one of the speakers at the annual State of Delaware Chamber of Commerce dinner. It is something I have done for, gosh, dozens of years now. But when I make customer calls, when I visit customers on calls to businesses large and small around our country, I always ask them three questions: How are you doing; how are we doing--this is as to the congressional delegation with Senator Coons, Congresswoman Blunt Rochester, and myself--how are we doing; and what can we do to help?

Do you know what most people say and what most businesses say? Our real challenge is just getting people to come to work. That is what I hear from all kinds of businesses, large and small. We just need people to come to work, people who have a work ethic and people who are trainable and we can count on to show up every day.

There are a lot of people who like to come to this country and work. They don't necessarily want to stay here and live here and become citizens here. They just want to have the opportunity to provide a better life for their folks and make a contribution to this country.

So rather than simply laying all of these problems that we have at the border at the foot of one person--is the Secretary responsible for some of it? Sure. So are we. One of the things that we could do is to adopt comprehensive immigration reform, which the business community in my State has asked us to do for years; and across the country, they have asked us to do that for years. If we did just that one thing, that would make a difference.

The Department of Homeland Security has a bunch of missions, some of them more critical than others. One of those is to protect our Nation from harm, whether the threat is a natural disaster or an act of terror. This is a difficult mission under any circumstances, and it is one that requires strong, principled leadership; and I think we get that from Ali Mayorkas.

Moreover, our border has seen significant changes in demographics and in the populations of those seeking asylum. The people coming across our border who are trying to get into this country look a whole lot different than in the first delegations I led down there as a U.S. Senator, as a junior Senator in this body. It has changed a lot, and we need to change the ways that we are trying to stem it.

I will close with this: I think most of us here--and I know my colleague who is offering this unanimous consent request--are people of faith. We are people of faith. We might be Democrats and Republicans, but we are also people of faith, for the most part. We might be Protestant; we might Catholic; we might be Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, whatever, but we are people of faith.

I was raised in Beckley, WV--a little coal mining town. My mom used to take my sister and me to church, God, every Sunday morning, every Sunday night, every Wednesday night, and most Thursday nights. She was interested in two things: one, in making sure we understood the Golden Rule to treat other people the way we want to be treated and, two, that we had actually read Matthew 25 and actually internalized it in that it is our obligation, our moral obligation, to the least of these. Remember there, in the Scripture, in Matthew 25, it says: When I was hungry, did you feed me? When I was thirsty, did you give me to drink? When I was naked, did you clothe me?

It also says this: When I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? Think about that. When I was a stranger in your land, did you welcome me? We have a moral obligation to welcome a stranger. We don't have a moral obligation to let millions of people come into our country without permission and to stay here. That is not part of Matthew 25. But there is a moral obligation that we need to look out for the least of these. I hope we will keep that in the back of our minds as we go forward.

The last thing I would say--and I have said this so many times that my colleagues are sick of hearing it--is that bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. I am a Democrat who was raised by two Republican parents. I have always believed that the way to get things done is to work together across the aisle. I am encouraged by the negotiations that are underway that involve several of our colleagues on the Democrat and Republican sides in addressing what is going on at the border. I have talked to both Democrats and Republicans who have been part of those conversations and negotiations, and I am encouraged that progress is being made. I think, rather than just pointing fingers at one another, we should actually build on that progress and hasten the day that we can actually begin, in a serious way, in a comprehensive way, resolving this major challenge to our country.

With that, I object.

Mr. President, as this day comes to an end, a very sad chapter in the history of this body comes to an end, mercifully.

I stand here before you and my colleagues as the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate, a retired Navy captain, a grandson of a Gold Star Mother, and from a family who believes in the Navy blue.

I want to say to the hundreds of military families who have endured the uncertainty of whether or not their loved ones--their husbands, their fathers,

their brothers, their sisters--were going to be able to assume the promotions that they have earned for their years of service in protecting our country and in helping to defend our Constitution that this sad chapter has come to an end.

I want to apologize to those families. I spoke last week and urged that we turn this page and move on, and I am grateful that that has happened.

I want to especially commend the work behind the scenes of our chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Jack Reed, an Army veteran, for the work that he has done in enabling us to end this sad chapter.

I remember serving in a number of tours in Southeast Asia in the Vietnam war. In some of those years, we were not home for Christmas, for the holidays. We were on the other side of the world, and our families were back here in the States. Those were not happy days for us, and I know the last months have not been happy days for a lot of people in the armed services who deserve better.

My hope is and my prayer is that at this Christmas season--at this holiday season, as we move toward Christmas--and as we move toward the end of the year and into a new year that the memories of what they have had to endure will fade and that what they will remember is that there are a number of our colleagues who stood up and said that this has got to end, and let's treat our military folks--all of them--with the respect that they deserve.

We have a big Air Force base in Delaware, Dover Air Force Base. We have C-5s and C-17s. Through their large cargo aircraft, they provide an air bridge to Ukraine by literally carrying in those large aircraft the munitions, the supplies, and the materiels that are needed to help Ukraine fight back against the Russian invasion.

I have kept very close tabs with the Air Force base, gosh, for 30- some years. One of the challenges we have at the Dover Air Force Base, with the Delaware National Guard, and at military installations across the country is the workforce. We find, for civilians, there are all kinds of businesses and all kinds of employers. When I go visit them in Delaware and across the country and I ask them how are they doing, how are we doing, what can we do to help--we in the Federal Government and the State government--they say: We just need people to come to work, people who are employable and trainable who will come to work.

We have similar challenges in our armed services these days. We need people who are willing to step up, be trained, and serve in the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard. We want to make sure, when they do that, that we will respect them and their families as we traditionally have done since the beginning of this country.

So, as we wrap this up and prepare to go home for the day--at least in Delaware--I will be back tomorrow to, hopefully, do more of our Nation's business. I am hopeful we will, and I am encouraged by what has happened today.

Again, to those who serve us throughout the world in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, the Navy salutes you, and God bless. To each and every one of you out there who is serving us, whether you happen to be in the States or someplace around the world, God bless you. Be safe, and thank you so much.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, one of the joys for me of serving here is serving as the chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, right next to Ben Cardin and about two seats away from Sheldon Whitehouse. And we appreciate your participation and leadership and membership on our committee as well, Madam President.

We have a bunch of pages down here in the well--one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight. They are high school juniors or seniors, and they are probably like 16, 17, or maybe 18 years old. Pretty soon, they are going to head out into the world and, hopefully, go on and do bigger and better things than we have and than their parents and grandparents have done. I want to make sure, and I think my colleagues want to make sure, that they actually have a planet to grow up on and a planet to grow old on.

When I was about their age, I became a Navy midshipman and raised my right hand to defend the country and

the Constitution, in those days. I learned a little bit about leadership when I was not much older than these guys. One of the things I learned about leadership is the importance that leadership by example is not ``do what I say'' but, rather, ``do what I do.''

One of the great things about going to the COP, with the leadership of Senator Cardin and with our colleagues, was that we didn't just go and sit and tell the rest of the world: Do x, y, or z.

We went and said: This is what we are doing, and this is why it is important. We want you to join us in this.

And, more and more, folks around the country--around the world, rather--are doing that. Today, I think the majority of Americans agree that climate change actually is a major threat--maybe the major threat facing our planet and the people who inhabit it. Every day, Americans see the impacts of climate crises, particularly in the form of more frequent and destructive storms throughout the--really, throughout the planet.

A decade ago, the United States experienced, I am told, 10 weather disasters--10--that cost at least a billion dollars each--10 that cost at least a billion dollars each. This year, there have been 25--25--of these billion-dollar events. That includes this summer's wildfire on the Hawaiian island of Maui, which, tragically, took some 100 lives-- our Nation's deadliest wildfire in a century.

We also know that 2023 was not one of the hottest years on this planet; it was the hottest year on our planet, without question. Scientists tell us that global temperatures are going to keep rising if we don't do more to transition away from fossil fuels.

So, Madam President, the question that I am asking myself and I think we need to ask ourselves is, What are we going to do about it? And as Senator Cardin and Senator Whitehouse have laid out, we are doing a lot. Can we do more? Yes, we can do more. Are we going to do more? Yes, we are going to do more.

We will hear from the chairman of the Finance Committee here in a little bit, and he will talk a bit about the great work that has been done under his leadership in the Finance Committee to make sure that we follow through and build on what we have already done.

But the United States, while I think we are getting our act together on this front, for a long time, we were the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases on the planet--far and away the biggest--and I think we have a moral obligation. Having put so much greenhouse gases up into the air, I think we have a moral obligation to actually lead in the reduction of emissions and make sure that these young people up here and my grandchildren and your grandchildren and all have a planet to grow up on.

I want to just commend Senator Cardin. I think he did a great job leading our codel. It was an honor to be a part of that codel. I want to say how much I enjoyed it. It was bipartisan. We ran into a bunch of folks from the House of Representatives over there, Democrats and Republicans. So it had a good bipartisan, bicameral feel, and we came away and felt good about it--really good about it.

As for COP28, Senator Cardin has already mentioned this, but our message to the rest of the world was that the United States is--I am tempted to say ``once again,'' but I will just say is again--leading the global effort to tackle the climate crisis, and my colleagues have already mentioned a couple of ways that we are doing that.

It has been mentioned--Kigali. There may be good people at home watching this saying: What in the world is Kigali? Well, it refers to a treaty, a treaty that actually reduces the emission of something called HFCs.

What are HFCs? My wife told me about a year or 2 ago: Stop talking about HFCs. Nobody really cares about HFCs.

Well, here is why they do. They are refrigerants. We all have refrigerators. We have air-conditioners. We have freezers and chillers and coolers. And the ingredient that helps make all of those work is HFCs, or hydrofluorocarbons. That is the good news: they work. It cools things off. But the bad news is it is bad when those HFCs leak into the atmosphere. They are 1,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. I will say that again: 1,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas.

So the idea of reducing those and phasing out those HFCs is a big deal. That is what we are doing. We are doing that. That one thing alone is worth about half a degree centigrade toward meeting our goals coming out of the Paris accords a year or 2 years ago. The agreement out of Paris was 1\1/2\ degrees Celsius reduction, and from this one thing alone with the HFCs, we are going to get a third of that.

Following that COP26, we put our heads down, and we got to work. After months of intense negotiations, we passed the Inflation Reduction Act. Big provisions in the legislation came out of our committee, Mr. Chairman, which included almost $370 billion in incentives for clean energy and climate change--the largest ever investment in climate action and environmental justice. Where I come from, that is real money, and, hopefully, we will do even more on that.

But soon after we had done that, the Senate came together on a bipartisan basis to ratify the Kigali Amendment that I talked about. That is a big deal, and we have to make sure that we actually implement it as intended.

But, if taken together, these historic wins are advancing our Nation's climate goals, and, importantly, they are also helping to create hundreds of thousands--hundreds of thousands--of good-paying clean-energy jobs in our country and many more around the world.

We have heard for years: We can't address climate change; we can't address the warming of our planet and create jobs and economic opportunity. Hogwash. We can do both. And if you look at the inflation numbers, inflation is down. If you look at employment numbers, employment numbers are up. And the work that we are doing on the greenhouse gas side is going forward. So we are doing it all. We are doing it all. But still, we are clear-eyed that there is more work to be done. COP28 resulted in--Senator Cardin had mentioned that--a historic global agreement that called for transitioning away from fossil fuels which are causing global warming. And our success in achieving our shared climate goals will depend on the actions we take in the decade to come.

With that in mind, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I remain focused on overseeing the implementation of our recent climate wins.

And over the next year, I hope we are going to build on our Nation's climate goals, including advancing bipartisan legislation to strengthen our Nation's nuclear industry--I think Senator Cardin may have referred to that--and helping confirm President Biden's nominees for key leadership posts.

I believe the last time I checked, nuclear energy is providing, I don't know, a half or more than half of our carbon-free electricity in this country. We have the potential to build on that, and we need to do that. Hopefully, we will.

I want to close by words spoken down at the other Chamber. A couple of years ago, French President Macron came and spoke to a bipartisan House-Senate gathering. In talking to us about climate change and global warming, he said: ``There is no planet B.'' That is what he said: ``There is no planet B.''

This is the only planet we are going to have--no planet B. We have to make every day count. And I think what we heard coming out of the COP28, we have every intention of helping lead this planet to that direction.

And with that, I yield the floor. I want to again thank Senator Cardin and yield back to him, thanking him for terrific leadership in the COP and so many other forums.

Madam President, I would like to be recognized for maybe 5 minutes to speak on behalf of the nomination of former Governor Martin O'Malley. Senator Cardin and others have known Martin for a long time; I have as well.

I think I met him when he was 18. He was part of an Irish folk group that was performing not just around Maryland or around Baltimore but as far away as Delaware--great places where people would come for great music, Irish music, and maybe a drink or two. Martin, I think, was too young to get in as a customer, but he could come in, apparently, as a part of a troupe and provide entertainment.

I knew at that time he was a future Commissioner for Social Security--not really.

Seriously, what I did know was he does pretty good harmony. In the jobs he has had since then, he has demonstrated that again and again. He and I both served as Governors of respective States part of Delmarva. We were not Governors at the same time, but very close together. He provided great leadership for our neighboring State of Maryland as Governor for many years, and I was pleased to be not just his colleague but just a friend.

The day I was sworn into the House of Representatives a million years ago in 1983, we were told as freshmen at our orientation that Social Security was running out of money and if somebody didn't do something about it, eventually, there would be a haircut, benefits would be reduced. And, ultimately, if we didn't take some strong action, there would be a lot more than a haircut and we might even see those benefits go away.

With strong bipartisan leadership from our President Ronald Reagan and strong bipartisan leadership from the House Speaker with whom Senator Wyden and I served, Tip O'Neill, we worked together to enact to reform--a whole host of reforms, as you recall--that ended up saving the Social Security Trust Fund.

Today, the Social Security Administration programs are an important safety net that provide financial support for not just a couple of million people but tens of millions of people in this country--mostly people in their sixties, seventies, eighties, and nineties, but also people who are disabled and not able to work, and in some cases, children lose a parent in a tough situation.

I have known Martin forever and respect him in his leadership, not only as a Governor but also as mayor of Baltimore and other State and local jurisdictions. I think they make him exceptionally well-suited to lead the administration in its efforts. As a Governor, you get to be involved with a lot of retirement issues, a lot of pension issues for not just the State employees in Delaware but with county and local folks, educators, all kinds of people. In the State of Delaware, you have to be conversant with health insurance benefits for people with wide ranges of ages and needs. When you are Governor, you are trained on the job. He has had excellent experience to help him prepare him for this responsibility.

The other thing I want to mention is it is an interesting lineup of organizations that have endorsed him and are supporting his nomination. Some we would expect, but others come as sort of a surprise. This is part of a large group. The International Brotherhood of Teamsters is among them. Social Security Works is among them. The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare is among them. But the list goes on and on and on.

So from one recovering Governor--that is me--to another--that is Martin--I want to thank Governor O'Malley for really extraordinary service to our country and for doing it in a way that doesn't rub people the wrong way--it doesn't create animosity--but in a way that really fosters harmony, the kind of harmony his singing group used to excel at all those years ago.

He will do a great job. He will make us proud. I know from my colleagues in Maryland and others who served with him as Governor and other capacities, we have already seen him in action, and we would be hard-pressed to do better than Martin O'Malley.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, as some of our colleagues know, I am a retired Navy captain and the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate. Today, I want to take a couple of minutes, if I could, to share what military service has meant to my family and to me and to discuss one of the critical lessons that we should have learned with the failure to welcome home many of my generation from our service while in the Vietnam war.

I come from a family who for several generations--for several generations--has sacrificed for our country and has been privileged to serve our country. My dad and Uncle Jim were chief petty officers in the Navy in World War II. My dad went on to serve a bit in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war. My Uncle Ed was a marine who served in combat, heavy combat, in Korea. My Uncle Bob was killed in a kamikaze attack on his aircraft carrier in the Pacific at the age of 19. His body was never recovered. My grandmother was a Gold Star mother. In my family, we bleed Navy blue.

My father's generation returned home to a hero's welcome at the end of World War II, but that was not the case for those of us who returned home from the Vietnam war many years later. With little fanfare, no welcome-home ceremonies, no parades, we returned to our hometowns to begin our lives anew, and we did, in some cases, with extraordinarily good fortune, and I am one of those.

In the years since then, I have witnessed a growing willingness from people across our country to atone for the kind of welcome home my generation received and to make clear that our service is now appreciated--fully appreciated. It is a wonderful feeling.

But for a good part of this year, we have once again failed to treat hundreds of our best and brightest military leaders with the respect and gratitude they deserve and have earned by their service.

The situation manufactured by our colleague from Alabama to block the promotions of hundreds of well-deserving military officers is unprecedented, it is unwarranted, and I believe it is shameful.

For nearly a year, he has jeopardized our national security and thrust the lives of some 450 military servicemembers and their families--put their lives in limbo. These families have been stuck both physically and professionally. They have been unable to move to new assignments at home and abroad, where they will assume their new responsibilities. Military spouses have been unable to find new jobs, and their children have been unable to continue their education in new schools.

While I was relieved that the majority of these remarkable men and women were finally able to accept their promotions recently, there are still 11 four-star officers and their families who are suffering because of the actions of one of our colleagues.

By using the lives of our military servicemembers and their families as a bargaining chip, we are failing to learn from history and once again disrespecting the sacrifices they have made for our Nation.

What kind of message does this send to our veterans across this country, to our men and women in all service branches who have served in some cases for decades? It is unacceptable. What kind of message does this send to countries around the world about how we treat those defending democracy every single day?

Moreover, the actions of our colleagues may deter potential recruits from joining the ranks of our military during a time when we are working especially hard to recruit and retain talented servicemembers.

As we go into the holiday season, every military family--every military family--deserves peace of mind. Yet, today, there are still 11 extremely deserving and well-qualified officers whose families continue to face uncertainty. I will repeat: It is unacceptable, it is unwarranted, it is shameful, and it must end.

Today, I urge our colleague from Alabama to think again about what is really at stake. Strong leadership is vital to our national security, and we cannot undercut senior leaders of our Armed Forces without jeopardizing our democracy.

To our colleague from Alabama, let me just say this: Please, please lift your hold. Let's learn from mistakes of our past. Give these 11 officers and their families the respect they also deserve, along with a truly happy holiday and a promising new year.

With that, I yield the floor.

I note that we have been joined by my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Grassley.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the recorded vote begin immediately.

Madam President, good afternoon.

I rise to join my two colleagues who just spoke in opposition to S.J. Res. 38, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Biden administration's temporary waiver of the ``Buy American'' requirements for the electric vehicle charging infrastructure.

Why is this important? Why should Americans care about this issue? Well, we continue to see, on almost a daily basis, daily reminders that our planet is on fire. Scientists tell us that we are running out of time to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to avoid the worst of the climate crisis. The rest the world is looking at us. The rest of the world is looking at us, the United States, for leadership right now on this issue. Instead, we are voting on a resolution that President Biden will certainly veto. That means it will not go into effect.

Having said all of that, let me explain why I oppose the resolution offered by our colleague from Florida. The way this resolution works is more than a little bit confusing, so let's take a couple of minutes to try to make clear what it would actually do. My colleagues have already referred to this. To better understand that, it is important to understand how we got to this point.

As I mentioned, addressing the existential threat of climate change is one of the most challenging events we currently face as a planet. We also know that our transportation sector, including the cars, trucks, and vans on our roads, is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. economy. In fact, the cars, trucks, and vans we drive create nearly 30 percent of our greenhouse gas emissions in America.

To that end, we included $7.5 billion--billion with a ``b''--in the bipartisan infrastructure law to help build out a national network of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, supporting our climate goals and creating jobs--lots of jobs--right here in America.

We are already seeing the impact of our investment. Since enacting the bipartisan infrastructure law nearly 2

years ago, the electric vehicle charging industry has announced investments of over $500 million in more than 40 plants for assembling American-made EV chargers. Let me say that again. The electric vehicle charging industry has announced investments of over $500 million in more than 40 plants for assembling American-made EV chargers. These plants in States like Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and North Carolina are bringing more manufacturing jobs back to the United States--back to the United States. That means relying less on countries like China to enable our clean energy transition.

If enacted, Senator Rubio's resolution would undermine this progress. His resolution would create greater uncertainty for our domestic EV charging industry, directly contradicting our goal of having this equipment made and assembled right here in the U.S. of A. That is why groups like the AFL-CIO and, as we have just heard, the United Steelworkers oppose the Rubio resolution. They oppose it. The reason why they oppose it is because its adoption would mean shipping jobs overseas instead of building our supply chain right here at home.

So, in reality, this resolution would actually weaken ``Buy American'' requirements. It would result in more EV charging products being built overseas, not here. It would undermine American workers and our Nation's ability to be global leaders in electric vehicles.

Put simply, a vote for this resolution is a vote against American manufacturing of EV chargers. That is why I oppose this resolution, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

With that, I yield the floor.

I am looking to see if there is anyone else to speak. I don't see anyone, so I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the nomination of ADM Lisa Franchetti to serve as the Chief of Naval Operations.

As some of my colleagues know, I was 17 years old when I raised my right hand to take the oath to defend our country and Constitution, Navy ROTC midshipman at Ohio State at the height of the Vietnam war. We had no women in our Navy ROTC unit at Ohio State or at any other Big Ten college, no women in the ROTC units. In the service academies, no women served in those roles, training roles. How things have changed. How things have changed. We are here today to actually put a really strong marker on that change and to applaud it.

I spent, all in, 23 years in Active and Reserve duty, and I am the son of a Navy chief petty officer, the nephew of a Navy chief petty officer, and the nephew of a deceased 19-year-old Navy veteran who was killed in a kamikaze attack in World War II on a carrier in the Pacific. My grandmother is a Gold Star mother. In my family, we bleed Navy blue.

I can tell you firsthand, folks, that we have before us a terrific, terrific nominee to serve as Chief of Naval Operations. She spent practically her whole life in the Navy, serving our country around the world in places including Italy, South Korea, as well as a number of posts here closer to home.

Admiral Franchetti's career has spanned nearly every theater of engagement, every level of service--commanding ships, squadrons, strike groups, and fleet levels. She has been a commander of U.S. Naval Forces Korea, deputy commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe and Africa, commander of Carrier Strike Group 9, Vice Chief of Naval Operations, and Acting Chief of Naval Operations, just to name a few. What a career. What a career. For her tremendous work, she has received almost two dozen prestigious awards and recognitions. She has even received some of the awards multiple times. What an impressive servant.

Admiral Franchetti has been making our country proud for not just a couple of years but for decades, from the day she signed up for the Navy ROTC Program at Northwestern University to this day.

The Senate stands poised to confirm her as Chief of Naval Operations, where, again, she will become the first woman to serve in that role and the first woman to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I know she will continue her outstanding work as she breaks barriers for the Navy and for women everywhere.

So, today, I am here to urge my colleagues to join me and others to confirm ADM Lisa Franchetti to serve as the U.S. Navy's Chief of Naval Operations.

I would just say to the admiral, to her husband Jim, and to their daughter Isabelle: We have two words in the Navy that we use when we want to applaud service, and they are ``Bravo Zulu.'' I can think of no woman more deserving of those two words.

As a human being--for my colleagues who had an opportunity to meet with her, you could just tell, you could see and feel why she has received the kinds of promotions and the kind of recognition and the kind of responsibility. She is one terrific human being as well. So I am honored to stand here on her behalf.

I would also say that we have about 300 other men and women--senior officers in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps--who are ready to be promoted, deserve to be promoted, and are not being promoted because we are not confirming them. Today, we have a chance to do something about it, and we can start with Admiral Franchetti.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, on September 27, the Environment and Public Works Committee favorably reported the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2023 as an original bill by voice vote. This bill, S. 2958, expands and improves the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, also known as CBRA. I would like to formally recognize the colleagues who have worked with me on this bill and share some thoughts on its significance.

According to Senate procedure, original bills are considered a product of the committee and do not have sponsors or cosponsors. With this in mind, I wish to acknowledge for the record that Senators Graham, Whitehouse, and Tillis assisted in authorship of the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2023. While these colleagues cannot be formally added as cosponsors, I want to thank them for their participation in developing this bipartisan legislation and note that I consider them to be cosponsors.

I would also like to ask our colleagues across the Senate for their support to pass this bill. CBRA was originally enacted in 1982, and it protects sensitive habitats along the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic coasts by restricting Federal investment within designated areas. In doing so, CBRA has saved billions of Federal tax dollars since enactment, while simultaneously protecting hundreds of thousands of acres of coastal wetlands from development. In 2019, a scientific study found that CBRA had saved the Federal taxpayer roughly $9.5 billion since its passage and is projected to save up to $108 billion over the next 50 years. Coastal wetlands that CBRA protects continue to provide key habitat areas for commercial and recreational fisheries, migratory birds, and endangered species.

Importantly, the areas protected under CBRA play a crucial role in coastal resilience by mitigating hurricane and flood damage. A 2023 study found that CBRA provided $112 million per year in prevented National Flood Insurance Program claims, a 7-percent savings in annual claims.

Given this broad range of benefits, CBRA has enjoyed strong bipartisan support since its inception. CBRA was developed and introduced on a bipartisan basis in 1982, with 58 cosponsors in the Senate led by sponsor Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island. CBRA's co-author, Representative Thomas B. Evans from my home State of Delaware, said CBRA was needed because ``the U.S. taxpayer should not subsidize and bear the risk for private development on coastal barriers.'' President Ronald Reagan signed the bill into law, noting that CBRA adopts a ``sensible approach'' to conservation that also saves taxpayer dollars. CBRA has continued to enjoy strong bipartisan support in subsequent improvements, map enactments, and reauthorizations in 1988, 1990, 2000, 2006, and 2018.

The areas protected under CBRA are identified in official maps that must be authorized by Congress and have not been comprehensively revised since 1990. The 1990s-era maps were created using now- antiquated mapping techniques and, as a result, are imprecise, difficult to apply in practice, and contain errors that impact property owners and project proponents. Congress has recognized this problem and directed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to undergo a yearslong modernization process to recommend updates to these maps. In 2013, the Fish and Wildlife Service received supplemental appropriations related to Hurricane Sandy in order to modernize CBRS maps, resulting in extensive recommended revisions along the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts.

The Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2023 adopts the comprehensively revised maps prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for 187 updated CBRS maps and 11 new maps, including maps prepared through the Hurricane Sandy Remapping Project and other technical correction reviews. Enacting this legislation will provide critical modernization of CBRA implementation, in addition to making other improvements and technical corrections in CBRA.

With that said, I would like to reiterate my gratitude to Senators Graham, Whitehouse, and Tillis, who have been indispensable partners in the development of the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2023. I look forward to continuing to work with them and our colleagues in the House to pass S. 2958 and enact it into law.

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