Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for Jennifer Hall's nomination to serve as the next U.S. district court judge for Delaware.

Before I describe what makes Jennifer Hall particularly well suited for the role, let me just take a moment, if I can, to describe our approach to filling court vacancies in the First State.

For over a decade, my colleague--my wingman, if you will--from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, and I have relied on a collaborative process for putting forward U.S. district court recommendations to the White House, regardless of who is in the White House. With the help of a judicial nominating commission, Senator Coons and I have worked to identify some of those qualified individuals in Delaware in order to recommend them to the President, regardless of political party. The process serves Delaware well, it serves our Nation well, and it has yielded yet another extraordinary nominee before us today.

As I often say, justice delayed is justice denied. Justice delayed is justice denied. It is critical that we act swiftly to confirm Jennifer Hall to Delaware's U.S. district court. It is one of the busiest if not, maybe, the busiest district court in the Nation.

I also want to take a moment to thank Judge Rich Andrews for his service to this court and also to our State and to our Nation. I know that when he takes senior status at the end of this year, Jennifer Hall will be well prepared to help take on an enormous workload before the court.

I would like to share just a little bit more, if I could, about her with our colleagues today. Jennifer grew up in Minnesota and is a proud graduate of the University of Minnesota--home of those Golden Gophers-- where she earned a bachelor's degree in biochemistry. She then made her way to Yale, where she met her husband Dave and earned not one but two degrees--a master's and a Ph.D. in both molecular physics and biochemistry. But apparently three degrees weren't enough, so she continued her studies at the University of Pennsylvania's Law School, where she graduated magna cum laude and immediately began a successful legal career.

In the years that followed, she had the distinction of clerking for two Federal judges appointed by President George W. Bush.

Jennifer went on to work at Fish & Richardson, a Wilmington, DE, law firm, where she focused on patent law and other complex business issues.

After 3 years in private practice, she felt called to serve the people of Delaware and of America. She spent the next 8 years at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Delaware. Then, in 2019, Jennifer was selected to serve as a magistrate judge at the U.S. district court for Delaware--the same court to which she has now been nominated to serve as a Federal judge.

The last 4 years have given her some of the best preparation and on- the-job training that anyone could ask for. Magistrate Judge Hall has impressed her colleagues on the bench both with her intellect and her work ethic, and she has a deep respect for and knowledge of the law.

Her background as a scientist, as a legal scholar, and as a magistrate judge has prepared her well for this new role. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote to confirm Magistrate Judge Jennifer Hall to serve as the next U.S. district court judge for Delaware. I am certain she is going to be ready to hit the ground ready on day one, especially in a district court as busy and as important as Delaware's.

Before I yield back my time, I am going to be joined here momentarily, I believe, by Senator Coons, my colleague from Delaware, who serves on the Judiciary Committee and with whom I serve and enjoy the opportunity to serve with him for our State. We have, I think, probably not the kind of close working relationship when it comes to judicial nominations that you find in most other States. We do it as a team. We have great help from the folks on the nominating commission who help make sure we not only identify excellent candidates but actually are able to present them for confirmation to the Senate.

The Presiding Officer, as my friend, I think you know that I am a recovered Governor. I served as Governor of Delaware for 8 years. As Governor in Delaware, the Governor gets to nominate people to serve on the court of chancery, superior court, family court, supreme court, and to submit those names to the legislature for their consideration--to the Senate, rather.

I always looked for three or four qualities, if you will, in the people I nominated as Governor to serve on the bench in Delaware. Even as State courts, we considered some of the major issues of our country, business laws and others. One thing I always looked for in nominees was people who are smart, not just book smart but actually wise. I looked for people who had a strong work ethic. I looked for

people who believe in the Golden Rule, treating the folks who come before them in their courtroom the way they want to be treated, and people who have integrity that just could not ever be questioned. Those are just some of the criteria I looked for in my judicial nominees.

For 8 years, I submitted names to the State senate in Delaware. They all went before the executive committee and eventually were considered. Every one of those nominees was confirmed, which says a lot about Delaware--a lot about Delaware.

I hope we will take a similar kind of action here today. Jennifer got a good vote on cloture, and my hope is that we can replicate that as well.

I will yield back. I don't know if I can reserve time so that when Senator Coons arrives, he will have time left as well because I know he is trying to get here. But this is, I think, a proud day for Delaware, and I know it is for Jennifer and her family.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar Nos. 300 and 324; that the Senate vote on the nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate resume legislative session.

Good afternoon, Madam President. I am here today to urge my Senate colleagues to join me in considering the confirmation of two excellent people to serve on the Postal Regulatory Commission, which is the governing body for the U.S. Postal Service: Robert Taub, who is currently a commissioner and we are seeking to reconfirm him; and also Thomas Day, who has come through our Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and, I think, unanimously recommended for a position on the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Both of these public servants have spent literally decades bettering our country.

Mr. Taub has served on the Commission since 2011, and he actually served as its chairman for, I think, more than 6 years.

Mr. Day has spent--listen to this--over 35 years at the Postal Service--35 years at the Postal Service--and another service, as I recall, in uniform for our country.

I would like to add that we have unanimously confirmed Mr. Taub not once but twice previously, and there is no doubt that he has served our country well.

I want to share three stories with you, if I could: a little bit about the history and the importance of the Postal Service; another about Mr. Taub's role in making the Agency what it is today; and a third about Mr. Day's influence on the function of our postal system across this country.

In 1787, the Founding Fathers of our country gathered in Philadelphia literally to draft a constitution to be able to outline how a new country might be formed and actually operate and work for the betterment of people who lived here then and in the future. They drafted the Constitution, and they sent that Constitution out across the 13 colonies and asked the colonies to look at it, kick the tires, find out what they liked and what they thought ought to be changed.

The first State to actually take it up and affirm--ratify, if you will--that Constitution was the colony that is now Delaware, the State of Delaware.

On December 7, 1787, after a week or so of debate at the Golden Fleece Tavern, the Founding Fathers of Delaware said: We like this Constitution. They maybe tweaked it a little bit and sent it on down to the other colonies, who followed suit. Delaware was, for one whole week, the entire United States of America. Then we opened it up. We let in Pennsylvania and Maryland. And the rest, I think, has turned out pretty well, for the most part, until now. Hopefully, we will continue to exist for many, many years, decades, centuries into the future.

One key element of the Constitution was the creation of the Postal Service. Our first Postmaster General was actually, believe it or not, Ben Franklin. Ben Franklin.

The establishment of the Postal Service represented an important early effort to bind us together as a nation--to bind us together as a nation--to unite us in communication with one another. That work continues today as postal workers cover all 50 States. They did it today; they will do it at

least 6 days this week--and to also make sure that we have the ability to provide the Postal Service to the folks who live in the U.S. territories, deliver the mail that helps unite our families and helps to grow our businesses and helps, really, to enable our democracy to function and thrive.

More than two centuries later, we continue to live up to that promise. In 2006, one of our colleagues, Senator Susan Collins and I led the passage of the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act literally on this floor where we are gathered today. That legislation modernized the Postal Service for the first time, I think, since 1970.

Just last year, we went on to pass, on top of that, the Postal Service Reform Act to shore up the Agency's financial foundation, including a requirement for all Postal Service retirees to enroll in Medicare when they became eligible for those benefits.

Over the past couple of years, I have had the opportunity to work with Postmaster General Louis DeJoy and the Postal Commission to make the Agency even more energy efficient.

Together, we successfully secured billions of dollars to expand the number of electrical vehicles in the Postal Service's delivery fleet. The Postal Service has one of the biggest delivery fleets in the country. They also have one of the oldest and one of the most polluted. What we have done is worked with the leadership of the Postal Service to make sure that those old vehicles time out. They really, for the most part, have timed out. They need to be replaced. They are going to be replaced with vehicles that will not only help us deliver the mail-- and do an even better job of that--but to make sure the delivery vehicles that are out there aren't making worse the climate crisis that we are going through as a nation, as a planet.

I want to tell you a little bit more about Mr. Taub, if I could, and how he has been integral to the changes that we have seen in the Postal Service, especially as it has become more modern and more efficient.

After spending years as a staff member to Members of Congress and Ambassadors and working for the Government Accountability Office, Mr. Taub, native New Yorker, became chief of staff to then Congressman John McHugh--an old friend and a very good Member of the House; a Republican, as I recall.

Under Representative McHugh's leadership, Mr. Taub helped to craft the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act in the House of Representatives. That is the same legislation that I mentioned earlier that I worked on with Senator Collins. Together with Representative McHugh and his team, we ushered the bill to the President's desk, where it was signed into law, again, in 2006.

This transformation of the Postal Service was just the beginning of Mr. Taub's involvement with the Postal Service. After establishing his expertise in the public sector, he continued on beyond this work when Representative McHugh was appointed Secretary of the Army.

As Secretary McHugh's principal civilian advisor, Mr. Taub helped lead a workforce of more than--get this--1.2 million people and managed an annual budget exceeding $200 billion--no small feat. For his exemplary work, Mr. Taub was awarded the Army's Decoration for Distinguished Civilian Service.

All this led to Mr. Taub serving on the Postal Regulatory Commission on not one, not two, but three Presidents, including both Democrats and Republicans.

He was first nominated to the Commission in 2011, and his strong leadership led to his appointment as chairman of the Commission in 2014.

As I like to say: In adversity lies opportunity.

And despite the troubles left over from a previous chairman, Mr. Taub took adversity in stride. He embraced the role of chairman with diligence and grace. He led a massive undertaking to study and to revise a postal rate system. As a result was the Postal Accountability Enhancement Act he helped to pass.

In 2016, his work paid off when he was once again confirmed to be chairman to the Commission and continued to serve as chairman.

Mr. Day has had an incredible record with the Postal Service as well. Let me just take a minute to talk about him.

In his 35 years at the Agency, he has held almost every role imaginable, including that of vice president of the engineering department and the government affairs department, as well as the chief sustainability officer.

In his role on the sustainability team, Mr. Day helped lead the Postal Service into the environmentally conscious practices of the 21st century.

As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I know the importance--that is my role--but I know the importance of our Agencies carrying out practices that protect our planet. Mr. Day shares this belief and understands it firsthand.

For example, he has been working to reduce the fuel emissions of the aging postal fleet I talked about and has done that over the past decade.

Let me be clear, if I could. The kind of institutional knowledge and expertise that Mr. Day holds is unique, and it would make him an extremely valuable asset on the Commission.

Mr. Day also has experience working with the exchange of mail on an international scale, serving in senior positions at the Universal Postal Union, the United Nations agency, and at the International Post Corporation.

On top of that, he is a graduate of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point and has bravely served in the U.S. Army. Besides being a captain and a Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate, when I learned about his service in the Army--I am a Navy guy--I said: Different uniforms, same team, and thanked him for all of his service in uniform as well.

There is no doubt that someone with his commitment to our Nation would make a terrific addition to the Postal Regulatory Commission.

Together, Mr. Taub and Mr. Day will continue revising the postal rate system and modernizing the Agency for the betterment of our country. For this reason, among many others, we think it is imperative that we confirm both of them--not one of them but both of them--and make sure the Commission is fully, fully staffed.

Congressional and Postal Service customers rely on the Commission to hold the Agency accountable for its service performance and to ensure its prices follow the law and its practices follow the law, and it is our duty to make sure the Agency can perform at the highest level, including for the good of our planet.

I like to say service to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up on this Earth. I think Mr. Taub and Mr. Day's decades of service to this country is more rent than most of us will ever be asked to pay.

I urge our colleagues to confirm both Mr. Taub and Mr. Day to ensure that the Postal Regulatory Commission can continue to do its important work on behalf of all of us, who are the fortunate beneficiaries of the Constitution that was written all those years ago and the promise it provided for our country.

With that, Madam President, I would note the absence of a quorum, and I thank the Presiding Officer and I thank my colleagues and ask for their support of the nomination of these two excellent, excellent candidates.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, while the Senator from Massachusetts is still on the floor, he and I have been friends for, gosh, 35 years. We served together in the House. We used to travel all over Latin America and South America during the contra war. We are still friends and compadres today in a different war--a war to save or planet and to make sure that we do that and that we provide a lot of jobs and economic opportunity.

I am here to talk about the nomination of David Uhlmann to serve as Assistant Administrator. But before I do that, let me say that, among the most important things that we are working on--it is not legislation, but it is legislation that we have already passed. And it is the climate provisions that are part of the bipartisan infrastructure bill that we adopted and the President signed a year ago. And there are climate provisions there that are enormously important, and we want to make sure that that legislation is fully enacted. Part of that is the responsibility of the administration, but it is the chair's responsibility. So that is hugely important.

The other thing that is hugely important is the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act, which has extraordinary provisions that deal with climate change, sea level, and all.

So it is not enough just to introduce legislation. It is not enough to enact legislation. We have to make sure it is implemented, and that is what our responsibilities and our oversight responsibilities include.

Having said that, I want to rise today in support of the nomination of David Uhlmann to serve as Assistant Administrator for the EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Over the last 6 years, some of our greatest achievements--some of Congress's greatest achievements--have been passed in a series of bedrock environmental laws. I just mentioned a couple of them a minute ago. They are laws that have revolutionized how to protect our natural environment and our people--people who live in this country and around the world--from the dangers of pollution.

These laws, such as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act-- also known as CERCLA--have made the air that we breathe cleaner, the water that we drink safer, and the lands that we live on healthier. And in the process, we have revolutionized ecosystems, we have improved the living conditions of entire communities throughout this country, and we have saved countless of lives.

However, these indispensable lifesaving environmental laws are only as effective, as I have mentioned, as our ability to enforce them and to make sure that they are complied with. And in the years immediately before President Biden took office, enforcement of our environmental laws had been dramatically undermined.

According to the data from EPA, between 2018 and, I think, 2021, environmental enforcement and compliance actions had fallen to half of what they had been during the Bush and the Obama administrations. This lack of enforcement presented a threat to public health and a threat to the well-being of our environment, potentially letting many big polluters off the hook after violating some of the fundamental bedrock and environmental laws.

That is why I am so pleased the Senate is again taking up the nomination of David Uhlmann to serve as the EPA's top enforcement officer, leading the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. There has not been a Senate-confirmed official leading the EPA's enforcement efforts for far too long.

As I said before, Mr. Uhlmann is exceptionally qualified to do this job. He brings to this position a long career that includes 17 years with the Department of Justice, serving in both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Let me say that again: a 17-year career with the Department of Justice, serving in both Democrat and Republican administrations.

During seven of those years served, Mr. Uhlmann served as the Chief of the Department of Justice's Environmental Crimes Section. In addition, Mr. Uhlmann's nomination is supported by five former EPA Administrators, including three who served under Republican administrations.

I am going to say that again. Mr. Uhlmann's nomination has earned the support of five former EPA Administrators, including three who served under Republican administrations: William Reilly, Lee Thomas, and Christine Todd Whitman.

His nomination also earned the support of dozens of other former senior EPA and DOJ officials--some from Democratic administrations, others from Republican administrations, and some from career officials.

In the words of former Deputy Attorney General for President George W. Bush, Larry Thomson, this what he had to say about David Uhlmann:

David is a top-notch environmental lawyer and an

outstanding leader with unsurpassed integrity, compassion,

and commitment to fairness.

I wish that we could say that about all of us. Those are high words of praise. In fact, Mr. Uhlmann received bipartisan support from the majority of this body nearly 1 year ago when we voted to discharge his nomination from the Environment and Public Works Committee.

Let me close by saying that I am confident that David Uhlmann will make an outstanding--an outstanding--Assistant Administrator for

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at EPA. I am eager to see him confirmed. I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting his nomination.

I yield the floor.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, folks that are back in Delaware are probably wondering as they are watching on C-SPAN, What is our Senator doing there giving a floor speech and talking about a woman from Wyoming? There is a Wyoming, DE. It is in Kent County, which is just south of Dover. We have great restaurants, plenty of restaurants. In fact, the Senator from Wyoming described that Svilar's--is it Svilar's? I think it is Svilar's--still exists.

We have a huge Air Force base in Dover, the Dover Air Force Base. They fly huge airplanes and have a mortuary there to receive the remains of our fallen heroes. That is part of our State. We just have very strong support for military personnel and all things Air Force. I am Navy.

So it is the idea that we have a woman here--you know, it is one thing for a guy to have done some of this stuff that Dessie did, but it is another to have a woman in World War II volunteer and enlist on the heels of the attack on Pearl Harbor and to go on and serve, really, with distinction.

In my family, we believe in the Navy blue. My dad was a chief petty officer, and my uncles were chief petty officers. My mother's youngest brother died in a kamikaze attack on his aircraft carrier, and my grandmother got the Gold Star for the Great Green Fleet Navy blue. So I just get inspired by Dessie's heroism that we are hearing about here today.

For the people who might have been listening carefully when Senator Barrasso was talking about the restaurant that she opened, he said that, when the people were hungry, she fed them. That is a line out of the Bible. It is actually a line out of Matthew 25: When I was hungry, you did feed me. When I was naked, you did clothe me. When I was sick and in prison, you did visit me. When I was thirsty, you did give me drink.

This is a woman who not only served her country in uniform and who not only ran a successful business--it sounds like--for over 100 years for family but who actually felt a moral responsibility to make sure that people did not go hungry.

I also am the senior Democrat--I am the senior, actually, member of a committee called Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We have jurisdiction, among other things on that committee, over the Postal Service. We have, literally, tens of thousands of people who serve in the Postal Service across the country today. It is a tough job and sometimes a thankless job, but we are grateful to them for their service. A lot of them, it turns out, served in the military. They may have served in the Korean war, and they may have served in Vietnam; they may have served in Afghanistan, and they may have served in Iraq. But they wore the uniform of our country, and they wore or wear the uniform of the Postal Service. In either instance, they are serving this country. They are serving their communities and are doing so, in some cases, at great risk to themselves.

There is a little bit of a love story in this as well. It is kind of a mixed marriage of a Navy woman and an Air Force man who get married and raise a family--have all of these kids--and go on to do amazing things as a family in their own community. It is a story that I am inspired by, and I am honored that Senator Barrasso would ask me to join him and Senator Lummis to tell the story, too.

I remember a couple of years ago when we were on the floor here-- Senator Barrasso and myself and a fellow named Mike Enzi, the late Mike Enzi, who held the seat that Senator Lummis now holds today--hearing them talk about the naming of a post office in Wyoming in a place called Thermopolis, which I had never heard of but that I will never forget. The question was, Should they rename that post office there after Bobbi Barrasso's dad? They didn't have a Democratic cosponsor for the bill. I talked to Senator Barrasso and to Senator Enzi and said: I would be honored. If you are looking for a bipartisan bill, I would be happy to be your wingman on this particular flight. And they were good enough to let me join the team.

So, to Dessie Bebout, your family members are out there, watching and listening. I want to just say thank you

for sharing a remarkable person, not just with the folks in the town in which she and her family have lived, worked, and served for all of those years, but thank you for sharing her with our country in a broader way. Thank you for serving as an inspiration. We are in your debt, and I am honored to be part of this trio to offer this legislation today and to ask for its passage.

Madam President, folks that are back in Delaware are probably wondering as they are watching on C-SPAN, What is our Senator doing there giving a floor speech and talking about a woman from Wyoming? There is a Wyoming, DE. It is in Kent County, which is just south of Dover. We have great restaurants, plenty of restaurants. In fact, the Senator from Wyoming described that Svilar's--is it Svilar's? I think it is Svilar's--still exists.

We have a huge Air Force base in Dover, the Dover Air Force Base. They fly huge airplanes and have a mortuary there to receive the remains of our fallen heroes. That is part of our State. We just have very strong support for military personnel and all things Air Force. I am Navy.

So it is the idea that we have a woman here--you know, it is one thing for a guy to have done some of this stuff that Dessie did, but it is another to have a woman in World War II volunteer and enlist on the heels of the attack on Pearl Harbor and to go on and serve, really, with distinction.

In my family, we believe in the Navy blue. My dad was a chief petty officer, and my uncles were chief petty officers. My mother's youngest brother died in a kamikaze attack on his aircraft carrier, and my grandmother got the Gold Star for the Great Green Fleet Navy blue. So I just get inspired by Dessie's heroism that we are hearing about here today.

For the people who might have been listening carefully when Senator Barrasso was talking about the restaurant that she opened, he said that, when the people were hungry, she fed them. That is a line out of the Bible. It is actually a line out of Matthew 25: When I was hungry, you did feed me. When I was naked, you did clothe me. When I was sick and in prison, you did visit me. When I was thirsty, you did give me drink.

This is a woman who not only served her country in uniform and who not only ran a successful business--it sounds like--for over 100 years for family but who actually felt a moral responsibility to make sure that people did not go hungry.

I also am the senior Democrat--I am the senior, actually, member of a committee called Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We have jurisdiction, among other things on that committee, over the Postal Service. We have, literally, tens of thousands of people who serve in the Postal Service across the country today. It is a tough job and sometimes a thankless job, but we are grateful to them for their service. A lot of them, it turns out, served in the military. They may have served in the Korean war, and they may have served in Vietnam; they may have served in Afghanistan, and they may have served in Iraq. But they wore the uniform of our country, and they wore or wear the uniform of the Postal Service. In either instance, they are serving this country. They are serving their communities and are doing so, in some cases, at great risk to themselves.

There is a little bit of a love story in this as well. It is kind of a mixed marriage of a Navy woman and an Air Force man who get married and raise a family--have all of these kids--and go on to do amazing things as a family in their own community. It is a story that I am inspired by, and I am honored that Senator Barrasso would ask me to join him and Senator Lummis to tell the story, too.

I remember a couple of years ago when we were on the floor here-- Senator Barrasso and myself and a fellow named Mike Enzi, the late Mike Enzi, who held the seat that Senator Lummis now holds today--hearing them talk about the naming of a post office in Wyoming in a place called Thermopolis, which I had never heard of but that I will never forget. The question was, Should they rename that post office there after Bobbi Barrasso's dad? They didn't have a Democratic cosponsor for the bill. I talked to Senator Barrasso and to Senator Enzi and said: I would be honored. If you are looking for a bipartisan bill, I would be happy to be your wingman on this particular flight. And they were good enough to let me join the team.

So, to Dessie Bebout, your family members are out there, watching and listening. I want to just say thank you

for sharing a remarkable person, not just with the folks in the town in which she and her family have lived, worked, and served for all of those years, but thank you for sharing her with our country in a broader way. Thank you for serving as an inspiration. We are in your debt, and I am honored to be part of this trio to offer this legislation today and to ask for its passage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak for 5 minutes and that Senator Stabenow be permitted to speak for 5 minutes prior to the scheduled votes.

Mr. President, it is good to see you, and it is good to see my colleague John Cornyn here in the Senate today, all the pages, and folks who came back to go to work. There is a lot of work to do.

One of the first items of business before us is a critical nomination, a nomination for the Department of Agriculture--and not just any job at the Department of Agriculture but the No. 2 job, the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture.

The person who has been nominated is a woman who serves currently as the Under Secretary at the Department of Agriculture, and she has been nominated to be the Deputy Secretary for the Department. She has a hard name to pronounce, and it is a name I have never seen before. It sounds something like this: So-cheel, like S-O, cheel, like C-H-E-E-L. You look at it down on paper, and you say: How would you pronounce that name? That is the way to pronounce it.

But the rest of her name is Torres Small. She is somebody I have known

for a relatively brief period of time. You know who knows her really well? It is a guy who used to serve with us for many years, a Senator from New Mexico, Tom Udall. In fact, as I recall, I think she actually worked for Tom Udall when he was a U.S. Senator.

Agriculture is a hugely important part of our economy in Delaware. I see Senator Stabenow is going to speak immediately after me. I know it is hugely important in Michigan. As she is the chairman of the Ag Committee, she knows that much better than I do.

The Department of Agriculture, the No. 2 job--huge industry, important in every State in our country. This is a big deal. This is a big deal. As it turns out, the administration has given us a terrific nominee.

The Department of Agriculture plays a critical role in ensuring that people from every corner of this country have something to eat-- hopefully, something nutritious to eat--and also helps us with respect to farming and farming agriculture and farming economy, public health, broadband, and a whole lot more.

And the role of the Deputy Secretary of the Department is a big deal, a very big deal. It requires someone who is diligent. It requires someone who is sharp. It requires someone who ultimately understands the Department. It is a big department. It requires someone who is diligent, and I know that Under Secretary Torres Small possesses all of those qualities and a whole lot more. In her current position as the Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development, she has been involved with every function of the Department, including overseeing the deployment of $2 billion for rural broadband that was secured in the bipartisan infrastructure law that we passed here by almost a unanimous vote more than a year ago.

This month, we saw States across our country receive this significant funding to expand broadband access for literally millions of people in many parts of our Nation--rural parts of our Nation--including Delaware's own Sussex County, one of the largest counties in the country. We only have three counties in Delaware. The second largest is Sussex. It is one of the top counties in the country for growing corn and soybeans, and it is one of the top counties in the country for growing chickens. We have, in Delaware, over 200 chickens for every person. So it is a big deal for us, big deal for us.

Prior to serving at the Department of Agriculture, Under Secretary Torres Small has had a history of serving her country. She was a U.S. Representative for New Mexico's Second Congressional District, where she grew up as--get this--a granddaughter of farmworkers.

As a U.S. Representative, she served as a member of the House Agriculture Committee, among other committees, and previously spent time on the ground in New Mexico, as I mentioned earlier, as a field rep for our old friend and colleague Senator Tom Udall, who is now the U.S. Ambassador to New Zealand.

I talked to him about a month ago, and, I say to Senator Stabenow, he thinks he has the best job on the planet. If the Senator talked to him, she will know what I mean.

But Xochitl is also an accomplished attorney, practicing water and natural resources law, and served as a former clerk in the U.S. District Court for a fellow named Judge Robert C. Brack. All these experiences help make her well suited to take on the role of Deputy Secretary because I know that she understands our Nation and understands this on a human level as well.

That was made especially clear during her nomination hearing. Under Secretary Torres Small spoke of her goals to better communicate through the role of the Department across our country so that programs are deployed more efficiently, more effectively, more humanely. She also highlighted how she will work to support underserved producers and small farmers by raising awareness of the Federal resources that they may be eligible for.

So, in closing, before yielding to Senator Stabenow, I strongly urge our colleagues to confirm Under Secretary Xochitl Torres Small as the Deputy Secretary for the Department of Agriculture. She will make us proud. She will make New Mexico proud. She will make our country proud.

With that, I will just stop talking and yield the floor to Senator Stabenow.

Madam President, I appreciate the opportunity to come to the floor. This is like what they call in Delaware a ``threefer''-- three for one. And I appreciate the cooperation of the floor staff and from you to enable me to do this.

One of the things I always look for when I am hiring somebody is I ask for recommendations and references of people they have worked for in the past. As it turns out, in the nomination of Dr. Colleen Shogan to be the Archivist of the United States, one of the people she used to work for was Senator Joe Lieberman, a good friend to all of us, Democrats and Republicans.

He was good enough to reach out to me several weeks ago, and we had just had a hearing on Dr. Shogan before us in the Homeland Security Committee. I was really impressed. He called and said: She used to work for me. And I said: No kidding? Well, I wouldn't disqualify her for that.

I am just kidding. But he went on to tell me what a remarkable human being she was, even at a younger age in her life. But as the Chief Administrator of the National Archives and Records Administration, the Archivist of the United States plays a vital role in a couple of different ways: one, especially with the preservation of the history of this country that we are all sworn to protect.

This person who has been nominated, this nominee, would serve as our Nation's recordkeeper for executive agencies and for Presidential records while also being responsible for the National Archives and Records Administration.

This role has been critical in leading the Federal Government's ongoing transition from paper to electronic records for a long time. Dr. Shogan is extremely well qualified to take on what is not a small responsibility; it is a great responsibility and important, too.

As Senior Vice President and Director of the David M. Rubenstein Center for White House History at the White House Historical Association, Dr. Shogan has already demonstrated her extensive skill set as an archivist.

She is a dedicated public servant, pulling a decade's worth of senior roles at the Library of Congress. She has developed a career in academia, Federal Government service, and nonprofit management. And one of those folks she worked with--worked for--was our former colleague, Senator Joe Lieberman.

At our hearing to consider her nomination before the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee earlier this year, Dr. Shogan reaffirmed her commitment to nonpartisanship, which is very important for this role. She highlighted her service as the Vice Chair of the Women's Suffrage Centennial Commission.

Dr. Shogan also shared how she will work to address the backlog of veterans' record requests at the National Archives and Records Administration. As the last Vietnam veteran serving here in the United States Senate, that means a lot to me.

She also has vowed to make sure that the oftentimes long and arduous process that can prevent our veterans from receiving their critical services and benefits that they are entitled to, that they are addressed.

I strongly urge my colleagues to confirm Dr. Shogan as the Archivist of the United States, and I know she will serve our country well.

My talking points now say to yield the floor, but I am not, because I have been asked by the folks who help us manage the floor if I would like to go ahead and speak on two CRAs, which is the Congressional Review Act resolutions. And I would like to do that, if I may. I appreciate the tolerance and consideration of the chairman of our committee.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I want to start off by thanking you for your good work on this subject--this important subject--at issue.

I rise today because our critical work to combat the harmful effects of climate change is at risk. I am particularly concerned about the efforts some of our colleagues are undertaking to make even more dire the situation that our planet already faces, make it worse.

Every day that goes by, we hear about the horrific scenes that are caused by natural disasters--wildfires in the West and in the Northeast; flooding and hurricanes in the South; tornadoes like the ones we had just last month in Sussex County, DE--the southern part of our State--that took a life; along with countless tornadoes across the Northwest. The list goes on and on and on.

These disasters are devastating families not just in my State, not just in your State, but also in States across our country, and wreaking havoc on our economy.

Over 3.3 million Americans were displaced due to natural disasters last year.

Let me say that again. Over 3.3 million Americans were displaced due to natural disasters.

On top of that, billions of dollars are spent every year--billions of dollars spent every year--in the aftermath of these disasters. That is double the number of people in Montana and Vermont combined.

Let me say that again. That is double the number of people in Montana and Vermont combined.

We cannot sit idly by, like some of our colleagues today would have us do, or allow for a reversal of the policies that are working to mitigate this devastation.

As we all know, the solar industry has been critical in helping us combat the effects of climate change. By transitioning to cleaner energy solutions, we are taking the necessary steps to reduce our impact--the human impact--on our warming planet.

The solar industry is not just good for our planet; it is good for American workers--a lot of them. Hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created right here on our own American soil to grow the solar energy and strengthen our supply chain.

The Inflation Reduction Act took these efforts one step further, allocating the largest investment we have ever made in the solar industry. The Inflation Reduction Act is already creating more jobs for more Americans across our country, while expanding our domestic solar manufacturing capacity.

With the commitment of the Biden administration, we are on track to increase domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity eightfold by the end of next year, generating up to $40 billion in new investments.

Let me say that again. We can increase our domestic solar panel manufacturing eightfold by the end of next year.

Why would we get in the way of that progress? We can only ensure that this outcome is possible if we overcome the significant challenge presented here today.

As you might remember, last year, the U.S. Department of Commerce's investigation into solar tariffs imposed on countries in Southeast Asia paralyzed the industry and halted the supply chains of critical materials for American solar deployment. Rightly, the Biden administration stepped in and announced the suspension of these tariffs. This action saved tens of thousands of jobs, allowing our transition to cleaner energy solutions to continue as demand for solar products continues to increase exponentially.

Today, we are once again facing the same threats to American jobs that we faced a year ago. It is unimaginable. At least it is unimaginable to me that we would be willing to make an unforced error-- an unforced error--in our commitment to protecting our planet.

We shouldn't be fighting the Biden administration's work to preserve the trade balance. We simply can't afford to make mistakes that would halt solar employment and cost us a whole ton of American jobs.

With current U.S. solar manufacturing, we are only able to meet one- third of domestic demand--one-third. It is imperative that we protect this industry and the tens of thousands of jobs it produces.

If the pause on solar tariffs were to end, the consequences would be devastating. Let's take a minute just to walk through what Americans would face. Here is what they would face:

First of all, 30,000 good-paying jobs would be eliminated this year-- not next year or the year after that; this year, 30,000. Of that 30,000, 4,000 are manufacturing jobs stemming from a $4.2 billion domestic investment in the solar industry from legislation like the bipartisan Infrastructure Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Second, CO2 emissions would increase by 42 million metric tons. That is about the same amount of emissions generated by the electricity use of 8 million homes in a year. This would undermine our progress on solar deployment and starve the solar market of the critical panels and cells that cannot be obtained in the United States at this time.

Third, our efforts to strengthen the supply chain by developing our own manufacturing would be severely harmed. The retroactive solar tariffs on materials that are currently not available in the United States would directly undercut our own efforts and send the supply chain into a downward spiral.

Fourth, roughly 14 percent of the industry's anticipated projects would be canceled.

I will say that again. Roughly 14 percent of the industry's anticipated projects would be canceled, significantly setting back our transition to a green energy economy.

We cannot afford to let this happen. We need to do everything in our power to lift up innovators in the solar industry, to boldly cut emissions from our power sector, and to attack this climate crisis head-on, all while continuing to create good-paying jobs.

Heaven forbid that the future generations look back and see that our own hand--our very own hand--forced this error.

I want to thank you, our Presiding Officer, Senator Rosen, for your wonderful leadership on this issue.

I want to urge all of our colleagues to vote no on this resolution for the good

of our country, for the good of our planet, for the good of the people who inhabit this planet with all of us, and also for generations to come, our kids and their kids.

I want to take just a moment and get some other papers from my binder, so I suggest the absence of a quorum. I will be back in 1 minute. Don't go away.

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

Madam President, I rise for a second time today and this time in opposition to S.J. Res. 9, a Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's rule protecting a bird known as the lesser prairie-chicken under the Endangered Species Act.

Before I explain why my colleagues should reject this resolution, let me first answer two basic questions. Some who may be watching this debate could be asking: First, what is a lesser prairie-chicken? And, second, why do we need to protect it?

Those are two pretty good questions.

Native to the southern Great Plains, the lesser prairie-chicken has long been considered an indicator for healthy grasslands and prairies upon which hundreds of species depend. If the lesser prairie-chicken is in peril, in time, other species could be in peril, as well.

Today, the lesser prairie-chicken can be found in five States-- Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico. We know that this colorful and, some would say, charismatic bird's distinct call was once a familiar part of the prairie soundscape, so much so that it has earned a representation in ceremonial dances of several Native American Tribes and celebration in communities across its multistate habitat.

Sadly, the population of the lesser prairie-chicken has declined by some 97 percent throughout the last century--97 percent. This decline is primarily due to loss of habitat and climate-related drought in the West.

In addition to the cultural and ecological losses that come with a declining lesser prairie-chicken population, there are impacts for communities, as well. For example, a local prairie chicken festival in Roosevelt County, NM, hasn't been held since 2012 because there are no longer enough birds in the area to sustain this tourism.

There are no lesser prairie-chickens in 45 of our 50 States. There are none. Still, we know firsthand the benefits that wildlife tourism can have on local economies. For example, people travel from all across the country--and, actually, around the world--to come to Delaware to see the beloved bird called the red knot. That is a familiar face and welcomed face along the shores of Delaware.

This tiny bird, which is now a threatened species due to climate change, migrates more than 18,000 miles. This tiny little bird migrates more than 18,000 miles on its roundtrip from the southern tip of South America to the tundra of the northern Arctic. Along the way, flocks of red knots stop for lunch, and they stop for lunch in Delaware. They stop for lunch along our beaches in Delaware. They stop and lunch on horseshoe crab eggs, often doubling their weight during this process. It is quite a spectacle.

Horseshoe crabs have been around for millions of years. Every year, during certain parts of the year, they lay their eggs and they lay them along the Delaware beaches, and the red knots come in and swoop them up and go to town, literally, doubling their weight before they head north or head south.

People come from all over the world to witness this. When they come from all over the world, they stay in our hotels. They eat in our restaurants. We have no sales tax. They shop safe with no sales tax. For us, it is a pretty good thing, and it is an even better deal for the red knots. They benefit and, frankly, so do we in our economy.

So while some might suggest that providing Endangered Species Act protections for the lesser prairie-chicken would hinder economic development, given our experience in Delaware, I have a different perspective based on our experience with threatened and endangered species in the First State.

Delaware is not the only State that pays homage to our Nation's iconic birds. In fact, five National Football League teams use birds as their mascot, including the Seattle Seahawks, the Arizona Cardinals, the Atlanta Falcons, the Baltimore Ravens, and the Philadelphia Eagles. Go birds.

In addition, the great State of Louisiana is known as the Pelican State. Today, the distinctive brown pelican is thriving along the Louisiana's coast because of the Endangered Species Act. To the west, the well-loved California condor actually became extinct in the wild in the year 1987. But with the help of the Endangered Species Act, there are now more than 550 condors in the wild. Unfortunately, Endangered Species Act protections for the lesser prairie-chickens have been delayed for decades. Now the species is in serious peril, which is why we should not wait any longer.

Some of our colleagues who oppose this rule for the lesser prairie- chicken have claimed that the Fish and Wildlife Service did not properly account for longstanding voluntary conservation efforts. That is just not true. While I commend the voluntary actions to conserve the lesser prairie-chicken, science shows existing efforts are not nearly enough to protect and recover this species.

That said, even with the data clearly demonstrating the need for enhanced protection for this extraordinary bird, the Fish and Wildlife Service worked hard to create a flexible rule that would mitigate the negative impacts on impacted industries.

Specifically, the many years of volunteer conservation actions are not for naught. Under the Biden rule, those voluntary actions remain the foundation for current habitat and conservation plans to protect lesser prairie-chickens, while allowing continued industry operations.

Under the rule, farmers, ranchers, and energy producers can generally continue their normal activities, as long as they adhere to reasonable conservation plans. That is true even if these activities have a small negative impact on this species. And this flexibility applies to the range for the entire northern population, including all known habitats in Kansas, in Colorado, and in Oklahoma, and about half of the State of Texas.

What is more, the Fish and Wildlife Service delayed the effective date of this rule for 60 days to allow more time to work with partners and to work with stakeholders. Doing so allowed impacted industries to create conservation plans and minimize disruption to activity in the region. The Service also continues to collaborate closely with States to ensure that all interested parties have the tools that they need in order to comply with the rule.

Despite this effort by the Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure a smooth implementation, this CRA resolution would take a sledgehammer to the rule. And this CRA is, indeed, a sledgehammer. If enacted, this resolution would not only invalidate the rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Services, but it could also prevent the Service from ever issuing a listing for the lesser prairie-chicken in the future.

To put it simply, enacting this resolution could set this species on a path to continued decline and eventual extinction. The resolution also undermines the Endangered Species Act. How is that, you ask? Well, this resolution violates the basic premise that the law should be applied based on science and not politics.

In 2019, an intergovernmental panel issued an alarming report. What did the report say? That report found that roughly 1 million species on our planet are endangered of extinction. Let me just say that again. In 2019--4 years ago--an intergovernmental panel issued an alarming report. What did it report? They found that roughly 1 million species on our planet are in danger of extinction.

We know that preserving our planet diversity is critical for innovation, it is critical for human health, and it is critical for our environment. And the Endangered Species Act is our best tool for protecting species and preserving environment.

Let me conclude this afternoon by offering a reminder of what is at stake here today: Extinction is forever. Let me say that again. Extinction is forever.

Overturning this listing may well mean the permanent loss of an iconic American species. That would harm our planet that we pass on to future generations and the communities and cultures that hold lesser prairie-chickens in high regard.

For all of these reasons, I oppose this resolution, and I strongly urge our colleagues to join me and others in voting no.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong opposition to S.J. Res. 11, the Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Biden administration's clean air standards for heavy-duty trucks.

If enacted, this resolution would wipe away EPA's most recent final rule that addresses smog- and soot-forming pollution from our largest trucks and engines. The resolution could also prevent the Agency from ever issuing similar standards in the future.

This Congressional Review Act resolution is bad for public health. It is bad for our economy.

As many of us know, the transportation sector is one of our Nation's largest sources of nitrogen oxides, also known as NOX emissions. Heavy-duty vehicles--such as our schoolbuses and long-haul trucks--make up a third of mobile source NOX emissions.

Nitrogen oxide pollution is one of the main contributors to ozone pollution, or smog, and also contributes to soot pollution. These harmful air pollutants are linked to increased risks of asthma attacks, respiratory disease, and, sadly, in some cases, premature death.

In December 2022, I joined clean air advocates, labor leaders, and EPA Administrator Regan as he signed the final rule to reduce this pollution from new heavy-duty vehicles starting with model year 2027. This was the first time in more than 20 years that EPA had updated the heavy-duty vehicle NOX requirements. It should not be confused with EPA's recently proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards for vehicles.

During the event, Administrator Regan told attendees that this rule would result in 48 percent reduction in NOX by 2045--48 percent reduction in nitrogen oxide emissions by 2045. These reductions will improve air quality nationwide, especially in areas overburdened by air pollution and diesel emissions.

Reducing vehicle pollution nationwide is especially personal for us in Delaware, where more than 90 percent of our air pollution comes from outside of our State.

The Heavy-Duty Vehicle NOX Rule is good for our health and good for our economy. With that, I want to give my colleagues three reasons why they should vote against Senator Fischer's CRA resolution.

First, the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule enables States to better meet EPA's health-based ozone air quality standards. Without the rule, States would have to make costly decisions and find more expensive ways to further reduce NOX emissions to meet ozone attainment. That is why many States and local air quality directors, including those in Arizona, Ohio, and Nevada, petitioned EPA in 2016 to take action on NOX emissions from heavy-duty vehicles.

In the same vein, I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the Record a letter opposing S.J. Res. 11 from the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which is an association that represents the State's clean air offices.

Second, these standards are achievable, and they provide predictability for industry, which the blunt tool of the CRA would undercut.

Companies such as Cummins and others in the heavy-duty vehicle industry support the Heavy-Duty NOX Rule. The CRA would reinstate a decades-old standard based on outdated air pollution control technology, while potentially blocking EPA from ever--from ever--adopting stronger standards.

Finally, if enacted, this CRA would negate the cumulative $200 billion in net benefits that the rule would generate between 2027 and 2045. These are the annual health and economic benefits that, by 2045, include: up to--listen to this--up to 2,900 fewer premature deaths--in 1 year--in 1 year; also, in 1 year, 6,700 fewer hospital admissions and emergency room visits; also, in 1 year, 18,000 fewer cases of childhood asthma; and, finally, in 1 year, 3.1 million fewer cases of asthma.

These improvements will be especially beneficial for the 72 million people living near truck freight routes, where many historically disadvantaged and underserved communities are disproportionately exposed to harmful ozone pollution.

Let me conclude by saying that the Heavy-Duty NOX Vehicle Rule protects public health and benefits our economy. That is a good combination. These protective and achievable Clean Air Act standards reduce dangerous smog and soot pollution and provides certainty for our Nation's heavy-duty vehicle manufacturers and for our State.

Walking away from all the benefits generated by this rule doesn't make sense. That is why I call on my colleagues to join me in opposing S.J. Res. 11.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am honored to be here on the floor with the Presiding Officer today.

I rise this afternoon to share my gratitude--and I know I speak for our Presiding Officer and every Member of this body, all 100 of us--for those who helped to ensure the passage of the Fire Grants and Safety Act through the Senate today and the weeks leading up to today.

As we all know, a bunch of us as kids, probably, like my sister and me, wanted to grow up and be firefighters. We ended up finding other ways to serve our States and communities, but, in the beginning, we wanted to be firefighters. I might add that our two sons, who are now grown and off into the world, wanted to be firefighters. Those were the role models they emulated and wanted to be more like. I think, maybe, one of the reasons why is that it is widely known that firefighters put their lives on the line for us not just occasionally or, maybe, during holidays or on weekends but every day--every day.

So, today, we honor them by passing this legislation and sending it to our colleagues in the House of Representatives. I think the final vote, if I noticed, was, I believe, 95 to 2. It is not every day we pass a bill with 95 votes. That means that just about every Democrat and every Republican in this body voted for it.

I know I hear a lot from people not just in Delaware but in other States that I have visited. People will say: Why don't you just work together? Why can't you guys and gals just work together and get something done? I would present this as a great example of what we can accomplish when we do work together.

I especially want to thank a couple of people among our colleagues whose hard work actually enabled us to work together and to pull together and to craft this bipartisan compromise.

Let me just start with our fellow Members of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus and the colleagues on this bill. They include Senator Gary Peters, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Senator Susan Collins, and, the last time I checked, yours truly as well.

I also want to thank the entire Congressional Fire Services Caucus for their bipartisan work on this issue, including the chair of the Congressional Fire Services Caucus, Senator Jon Tester of Montana.

There were also many organizations that helped us better understand the needs of our firefighters, and I want to thank them too. Let me just mention them briefly, if I may: the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Firefighters, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, the National Volunteer Fire Council, the National Fallen Firefighters Foundation, and the National Fire Protection Association. I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that we could never have done this without their hard work and their encouragement even today.

I just want to say that most of us in this body will go to bed tonight--turn

off the lights and go to sleep--and not have to worry about being awakened in the middle of the night to go out and save somebody's life. We are not going to have to be disrupted in our own families or in our own personal lives to go out and lend a hand if there has been an auto accident or a truck accident and put our lives at risk. We are not going to be drawn into a situation with a house on fire.

We had, not too long ago, in Delaware, a situation wherein firefighters literally rushed into a house that was on fire with the feeling that there were people literally in the basement of the house. The floor of the house collapsed, and we lost the lives of several firefighters.

But none of us have to worry about that--making that kind of sacrifice and undertaking those kinds of risks.

None of us will have to worry about being the young woman who was a volunteer firefighter. She worked in the healthcare field, as I recall, and was a volunteer firefighter. She worked late at night and was literally driving home on I-95 in Wilmington. It was when we were doing a reconstruction of I-95 right through the middle of our city.

There was an accident at about 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, and the volunteer firefighter, the woman, pulled off. She stopped to provide help to those who were impacted. The volunteer firefighter was killed. She was struck by a passing vehicle and lost her life.

None of us have to worry about any of that happening and having to put ourselves or members of our families in that kind of jeopardy.

The reason is that there are literally tens of thousands of people from all corners of this country--all different sizes and colors, men, women, young, and old--who understand that we all have an obligation to serve and look out for other people even when it puts us in danger and at risk with our own lives.

So, in passing this legislation--and it goes to the House of Representatives now; it is not a done deal--our hope is that the House of Representatives will see fit to embrace it and pass it and send it on to the President.

I presume that most Presidents--and I have had the privilege to have known quite a few of them--have great affection for the firefighters in their own States, where they come from. Nobody has greater affection in Delaware than does our President. He and I and Chris Coons, as well as Mike Castle and Pete du Pont, who came before us, share that affection and that high, high regard.

I heard our President, when he was a mere Senator, say that there are actually three political parties in Delaware. One of those is Democrat; one is Republican; and the other is of the folks who are the firefighters and their families. They stand out in the crowd.

I will just close with this.

I have asked people why they are willing to put their lives in danger to help save our lives and the lives of others who are in jeopardy. I have heard from hundreds of men and women who have said that the reason they do it is that it gives them joy. It gives them joy to know that they are making a difference with their lives and that they are serving other people.

One or two, every now and then, will actually invoke the Golden Rule: to treat other people the way you want to be treated. How would I want to be treated if my house were on fire? How would I want to be treated if my son or my daughter were in a traffic accident? If there were a forest fire surrounding our community, how would I want to be treated? Well, that is the way I would like to be; so why don't I treat other people the same way.

With that, this has been a good week, and we are ending here on a very high note. I want to thank the Presiding Officer for all of his good work. It has been a pleasure working with him this week and every week. To the neighbor right across the Delaware River, I am looking forward to many, many happy trails in the days to come.

We have these young pages who are sitting down here at the foot of the Presiding Officer and the floor staff. I don't know if any of them, when they were little kids, had the desire to be a firefighter. My guess is--actually, some of them are nodding their heads that, yes, they did. Hopefully, we will never outgrow the spirit that compels and encourages people to stand up and play the role of a firefighter whether it is in the middle of the night with a fire or an accident or whatever it might be. Hopefully, their example and that spirit will be contagious and infect all of us in a very, very good way.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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