Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Today, it is my honor to rise in support of the Honorable Justice Tamika Montgomery-Reeves to be confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Just a few months ago, in September of this year, I had the privilege to introduce Justice Montgomery-Reeves at her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing, where she was

joined in the audience by her large family and I think most of the State of Delaware.

As my colleague from Illinois, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, will attest, we needed a few extra chairs at that hearing in order to accommodate Tamika's family and her friends. Many Delawareans, including the entire Delaware Court of Chancery and the current chief justice of the Delaware Supreme Court, either made the trek down I-95 or on the Amtrak train that morning to cheer on Justice Montgomery- Reeves. Today, we bring her nomination one step closer to final confirmation.

My colleague from Delaware, Senator Coons, and I have often said that those of us in the Senate could learn a thing or two from the First State. When it comes to nominating judges, Delaware's Governor is tasked with filling vacancies on some of the Nation's most highly regarded State courts, including the Court of Chancery and the Delaware Supreme Court.

The Governor routinely seeks advice from a bipartisan judicial nominating commission but is also required to nominate judges from both political parties. We literally have an overall political balance across our judiciary. This rule, enshrined in our State's constitution, brings balance to our court system. I believe it has served our State and our Nation well for over a century. I think it is a pretty good model for the rest of the country, actually.

Twenty-five years ago, when I was privileged to serve as Governor of Delaware, I had the opportunity to nominate a new chancellor--or what some would call a chief justice--to the Delaware Court of Chancery. I could have nominated a Democrat. I ended up nominating Bill Chandler.

Bill Chandler was born in Sussex County in southern Delaware and previously worked for two Republican Governors--Pete du Pont and Mike Castle. I will tell you, I took some heat politically for that nomination, but I believed that he was the best qualified person for the job, and all these years later, I still believe that. It didn't matter what political party he was from; I knew he would be one heck of a chancellor, and, boy, was he.

As chancellor, Bill Chandler earned the respect of our Nation's business and legal communities as a fairminded judge with the utmost integrity, and along the way, he hired and mentored countless law students and law clerks. As it turns out, Bill Chandler hired a young law student, a native of Mississippi, who was a law student at the University of Georgia. He nominated her to be one of his clerks in 2006. Her name was and still is Tamika Montgomery-Reeves.

I am a proud Delawarean, but, as I think my colleague the Presiding Officer knows, I am a native son, actually, of West Virginia. Justice Montgomery-Reeves is also a proud Delawarean, but, like me, she made her way to Delaware from another place--in her case, Mississippi--and fell in love with our State, just as I did many years ago.

After clerking for Chancellor Chandler, Tamika graduated and began a career in private practice. She became an expert in corporate law and complex business litigation. After a brief stint in private practice in New York, she was hired by another prominent law firm, Wilson Sonsini, which just happened to be looking to open up an office in--guess where--Delaware, the First State. She quickly made partner and could have continued on a path toward a lucrative legal career, but Tamika felt called to serve.

In 2015, a vacancy occurred on our Court of Chancery, and then- Governor Jack Markell nominated her to the bench to serve on that court. And she was confirmed unanimously by the Delaware State Senate.

Four years later, in 2019, Governor John Carney nominated her to serve on the Delaware State Supreme Court; and, once again, she was confirmed unanimously by the Delaware State Senate, by every single Democrat and, just as importantly, by every single Republican.

And by the way, Mr. President and colleagues here in our Chamber today, the Delaware State Senate leadership, both Democrats and Republicans, have sent a letter in support of Justice Montgomery- Reeves' confirmation to the Third Circuit.

It is part of the reason that she has earned bipartisan support in the Judiciary Committee, and that nine of our friends on the other side of the aisle voted to invoke cloture on her nomination just last week.

On behalf of Senator Coons and myself--I want to take my hat off to him for helping to guide this nomination through the Judiciary Committee on to the floor and through last week's cloture vote--we want to thank all of our colleagues--all of our colleagues--Democrats and Republicans, who voted last week on moving forward Tamika's nomination.

Having said that, Justice Montgomery-Reeves is also a trailblazer, becoming the first African American to serve on both the Delaware Court of Chancery and on the Delaware Supreme Court.

Justice Montgomery-Reeves has been nominated to these positions because her credentials and her intellect are top-notch, and I might add, just as importantly, so is her heart.

In addition to her incredible academic and legal career, Tamika and her husband, Jeffrey, are raising two wonderful boys--sons that any of us would be proud to call their own--and raising them back home in Delaware.

So I would just say to them--Jeffrey, Jackson, and Tyson--if you are watching at home, thank you for allowing your wife and your mom to continue her service to our country in this new role. I know you are proud of her, and we are proud of her as well.

Let me close by saying that I am certain that if Tamika Montgomery- Reeves is confirmed, that the Delaware Supreme Court's loss will be our Nation's gain. She will bring a spirit of collegiality and consensus to the Third Circuit, just as she has in the courts that she served on in Delaware.

She is not an ideologue; she is an ideal judge.

Justice Montgomery-Reeves is of the highest caliber judges in our State and our Nation and has my strongest possible endorsement.

I urge all of our colleagues to join Senator Coons and me--Democrats and Republicans--in support of her nomination. She will not disappoint.

I would like to yield the floor to my colleague, who has done a great job in helping to steer this nomination and, actually, to help make the nomination possible in the first place. It is my pleasure, Senator Coons.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Before the Senator leaves, the Bible study that he has referenced is one that Jim and I and a handful of other Democrats and Republicans join in every Thursday when we are in session, with Barry Black, the Chaplain of the Senate, and it has been hosted literally in the hideaway of Jim Inhofe. So it is a home game for him, but it is a home game for Democrats and Republicans just to share some time together in prayer and faith and some of the challenges we face.

Some people across the country watch the news all the time--you would think we hate each other here and we never want to work together, never want to get anything done. Thanks in no small part to Jim Inhofe's hospitality and participation and example, that is not the case.

So I just want to add my comments as well.

He is the two-time chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a great partner with me in reducing emissions from buses and diesel engines and stuff like that. He is the lead Republican on the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. So I just want to say there are some good environmentalists in Oklahoma, and on all the issues we have dealt with, Jim Inhofe has been one of those.

Sure.

People ask me: What do you like most about being in the Senate? What do you like most about public service? I like helping people. When they ask me more specifically what gives me joy in the Senate, it is that Thursday, it is that half an hour we spend together just about every Thursday. I am always pleased to be there with our colleagues--sometimes even work out in the gym together.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce along with the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2022.

The Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2022 amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and codifies maps to update and add units to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Congress first passed the bipartisan Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, due in no small part to the hard work of former Congressman Tom Evans from Delaware. Today, the Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of 588 system units, which are areas of low and undeveloped coastal land along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. There are also 282 otherwise protected areas in the system, which are used primarily for conservation and recreation purposes. Together, this is 3.5 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. These units and areas are important not only because they protect habitat vital to our Nation's wildlife but because conserving sensitive coastal habitats also protects our coastal communities--our homes, businesses, and infrastructure--from flooding.

The Strengthening Coastal Communities Act represents a proactive step toward more resilient coastlines across our Nation. We need to prioritize the protection of our coastlines ahead of the next storm instead of in response to it. Doing so will make our coastal communities better able to withstand extreme weather events in the face of a changing climate.

The legislation I am introducing today would codify 195 updated or new maps that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has transmitted to Congress for the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This bill also includes some minor amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to improve Agency implementation of the Act. In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in appropriations annually for the Coastal Barrier Resources Act for fiscal years 2023 through 2027. This increase from the last appropriation authorization of $2 million is well- justified by the long-term coastal resilience value generated by the program. This program also saves taxpayer dollars by restricting the use of Federal funding in the sensitive areas that comprise the Coast a Barrier Resources System. This reauthorization has clear benefits for our environment and economy--a win-win for Delaware and our Nation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill I am introducing today be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce along with the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, the Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2022.

The Strengthening Coastal Communities Act of 2022 amends the Coastal Barrier Resources Act and codifies maps to update and add units to the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Congress first passed the bipartisan Coastal Barrier Resources Act in 1982, due in no small part to the hard work of former Congressman Tom Evans from Delaware. Today, the Coastal Barrier Resources System consists of 588 system units, which are areas of low and undeveloped coastal land along the Atlantic, Gulf of Mexico, Great Lakes, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico coasts. There are also 282 otherwise protected areas in the system, which are used primarily for conservation and recreation purposes. Together, this is 3.5 million acres of land and associated aquatic habitat. These units and areas are important not only because they protect habitat vital to our Nation's wildlife but because conserving sensitive coastal habitats also protects our coastal communities--our homes, businesses, and infrastructure--from flooding.

The Strengthening Coastal Communities Act represents a proactive step toward more resilient coastlines across our Nation. We need to prioritize the protection of our coastlines ahead of the next storm instead of in response to it. Doing so will make our coastal communities better able to withstand extreme weather events in the face of a changing climate.

The legislation I am introducing today would codify 195 updated or new maps that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has transmitted to Congress for the Coastal Barrier Resources System. This bill also includes some minor amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources Act to improve Agency implementation of the Act. In addition, the bill authorizes $5 million in appropriations annually for the Coastal Barrier Resources Act for fiscal years 2023 through 2027. This increase from the last appropriation authorization of $2 million is well- justified by the long-term coastal resilience value generated by the program. This program also saves taxpayer dollars by restricting the use of Federal funding in the sensitive areas that comprise the Coast a Barrier Resources System. This reauthorization has clear benefits for our environment and economy--a win-win for Delaware and our Nation.

I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact this important legislation this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill I am introducing today be printed in the Record following my statement.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following letter in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today in honor of the 100th anniversary of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol in Rehoboth Beach, DE. With over a century of excellence in safety, a strong history in lifeguard competition achievements, and a fully operational emergency medical unit, the Rehoboth Beach Patrol is a leading beach patrol in the Nation.

It takes a world class beach patrol to protect a world-class beach, and over the years, the beach patrol has expanded from its humble beginnings. The Rehoboth Beach Patrol was established in 1921 by Benjamin F. Shaw and the Red Cross with just two guards. In 1938, it expanded to 17 guards protecting eight beaches. Over the years, the beach patrol added additional guards to a total of 65 and lifesaving equipment, as Rehoboth Beach attracted more and more tourists far and wide to enjoy its beaches.

Perhaps most impressive is that over its more than 100-year history, the beach patrol has recorded only one drowning under its watch. The beach patrol prides itself on ensuring safety both in the water and on its beaches, something that a machine or camera cannot do. It is the skill of the lifeguards, their attention, and ability to manage the beach that keeps everyone safe and having fun.

When an organization like the Rehoboth Beach Patrol reaches a 100- year milestone, it has seen much more change than just the style of bathing suits, it has also seen a change in the demographics of its members. From just two men to a diverse group of lifeguards that are half women, the beach patrol is a reflection of the changes in the seaside town over the century.

I am honored to rise today to honor the many men and women of the Rehoboth Beach Patrol who have sacrificed their safety in order to protect others. They are true public servants who make Rehoboth Beach-- and our great State--a wonderful and safe place for people of all ages to visit and enjoy. You are all a point of pride for our State, and I wish you many more years of service to Delaware.

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

Madam President, I am delighted to rise today to salute a member of my committee staff who has made literally invaluable contributions to not just the Congress but to our Nation and not just for a couple of months or years but for literally decades.

Greg Dotson, the chief counsel for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, which I am privileged to chair, will be retiring on September 30 following a distinguished career in service to this country of ours. On this occasion, I want to take note of his remarkable legacy and extraordinary service to the people of America.

As many of my colleagues will attest, true leaders in this body and true leaders elsewhere are only as good as the team that works for them. Like I say, I hire people smarter than me, and that is one of the reasons I think I have had some success. But good leaders are always looking for the best people they can find.

For many of us who are elected officials in this body and others, those teams of staff members too often toil in the background and are rarely recognized publicly for their service.

While all the members of the Environment and Public Works Committee staff that I am privileged to lead are wonderful public servants, there are sometimes rare individuals who stand out as having made an extraordinary

impact on the American people and on this country as a whole. Greg Dotson is one of those exceptional people. He has emerged as an invaluable leader in the effort to address the urgent threat of climate change and has dedicated his life to that vital calling.

Greg first joined this mission as a staffer to Congressman Henry Waxman in 1996. Greg followed Congressman Waxman to the House Oversight Committee and, later, the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which Henry led.

During his nearly 20 years in the House, Greg Dotson helped lead a team that produced the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, a landmark, comprehensive climate change and energy bill that passed the House of Representatives in June of 2009.

He has worked on a number of major legislative achievements, including the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009; the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007; the Energy Policy Act of 2005; the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, and many, many more. Greg also spearheaded vital congressional oversight and investigative efforts with environmental significance, including high- profile inquiries into political interference with climate science, the BP Deepwater Horizon disaster, and the energy market abuses of Enron.

After his illustrious service in the House of Representatives, Greg went on to share his wisdom and passion with young people who are eager to follow in his footsteps and protect our planet. In 2017, he became a professor in environmental policy at the University of Oregon's Environmental and Natural Resources Law Center, a role which has enabled him to take the lessons of his congressional service and use them to help inform the next generation of legal scholars and environmentalists.

It was from there that he came to the Environment and Public Works Committee in early 2021, when I was becoming chairman of the committee. When we began a new Congress that year with a new Senate majority and a new President who was committed to action on addressing climate change and our Nation's infrastructure needs, while creating lots of jobs, we knew that EPW needed a seasoned, thoughtful counsel who could help guide our committee through this historic time. Greg was just the man for the job.

As chief counsel, he played an invaluable role in helping negotiate and craft the transformational bipartisan infrastructure law enacted last year, working to find common ground with our Republican colleagues and including remarkably strong climate investments in our infrastructure legislation. He also led the charge on efforts to boost electric vehicle infrastructure, clean up our air and our water, and protect communities who are facing the worst consequences of our climate crisis.

In addition, Greg played a leading role in efforts to boost the clean energy revolution for our automotive industry. He worked with me to lay out a vision for how the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency could adopt standards to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the automotive industry and eliminate tailpipe pollution from new cars by 2035.

The letter we ultimately sent to EPA Administrator Michael Regan was met with applause from both auto manufacturers and environmental groups alike. And as someone who has been here a few years, that doesn't happen every day.

A few months after we unveiled our proposal, the Biden administration followed up by announcing a new plan that adopted our recommendations for how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars, from trucks, while embracing zero-emission vehicles.

And by calling for half of the new vehicles sold in the United States to be zero-emission vehicles by the year 2030 and adopting a multipollutant approach--as we recommended--our Nation will reap major health benefits for millions of Americans while accelerating market trends to the clean cars of the future.

This was Greg's vision, and it will remain his legacy for years and years to come. And just a few weeks ago, Greg was here on the Senate floor with Mary Frances Repko, myself, and others on our team, our colleagues as well--on the floor for the crowning achievement of his decades of government service on climate crisis: the Inflation Reduction Act. Greg's countless hours of work were on that landmark bill and were critical to making possible the largest investment in climate in our Nation's history.

Let me just say that again, the Inflation Reduction Act. Greg's countless hours of work were on that landmark bill, and they were critical to making possible the largest investment--the largest investment--in climate in our Nation's history.

He didn't stop there either, going on to work tirelessly on the methane emissions reduction program--methane is many, many times more harmful than carbon dioxide with respect to climate--an initiative that will have significant impact in our efforts to combat the threat of climate change and safeguard our planet for future generations.

Throughout all of his dedicated service to our Nation and the environment, Greg has been just as committed to his family. All of us here in the Senate and, indeed, our Nation as a whole are grateful to his wife Janine and to their two children, Dahlia and Bryce. I believe they are today in Oregon, at their home in Oregon. We want to thank them, the three of them, for generously sharing with us the time and extraordinary talents of their husband and their father.

And when he wasn't here in Washington, DC, working tirelessly to make history and improve the lives of the American people, Greg was at home in an equally important role as husband and dad. Those are maybe the two most important roles that all of us can hope for ourselves, and we also hope that he can now begin to devote even more time to them in the days ahead.

Greg's public service follows his own family legacy. His father was a Navy man, like my own dad and many of my uncles. That dedication to the greater good, to the betterment of society, which ran through his family, is a beautiful family legacy that Greg continues today.

I am deeply grateful--I am deeply grateful--for his sage counsel and know that he will continue to make this world a better place as he returns to teach at the University of Oregon.

And so, in closing, I say to Greg something that we like to say in the Navy when people do extraordinary things with their lives. We say: Bravo Zulu, Bravo Zulu. So, Greg, to you and your family, Bravo Zulu.

Thank you, my friend. I bid you fair winds and following seas as you prepare to set off on the next set of adventures that lie ahead. And I know that many Members of Congress, along with their staffs, both past and present, join me in this salute.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce, along with the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin; the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Blumenthal; the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Markey; the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Merkley; the Senator from California, Mr. Padilla; and the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Whitehouse, a resolution to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Clean Water Act.

The Clean Water Act, which was signed into law on October 18, 1972, is one of the most important environmental laws in the United States and our Nation's principal safeguard against pollution and the degredation of our Nation's water bodies. Five decades of Clean Water Act implementation has improved our Nation's waterways, wetlands, and water infrastructure, all while protecting public health and aquatic ecosystems. This resolution recognizes the historic achievements in improving water quality that have been made over the past 50 years.

Perhaps the most memorable example of improved water quality is Ohio's Cuyahoga River. In 1969, the river was so polluted that it actually caught fire. It is a memory I will never forget. Now, because of the Clean Water Act, the Cuyahoga River has been cleaned up and is home to over 60 species of fish.

Americans now have a law that seeks to protect them from industrial pollution in our rivers and streams or the

indiscriminate destruction of our wetlands. Despite this progress, there have been various challenges and changes to the implementation of the law. Currently, there is a case before the Supreme Court, which seeks to once again allow polluters to dump their waste into upstream waters without consequence. I can think of no better way to commemorate one of our greatest environmental achievements than to fight back against this assault on clean water.

While we have come a long way since enacting the Clean Water Act 50 years ago, we must do more--not less--to deliver on the promise of clean water in our country.

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

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

Mr. President, I rise today to remind our colleagues of the incredible opportunity that we have before us today--incredible opportunity that we have before us today.

Later today, this body, the U.S. Senate, will have the opportunity to vote to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

What does that mean?

Kigali, as it is affectionately known, is a global treaty to phase down the use of hydrofluorocarbons, also known own at HFCs. For years, HFCs have been widely used as a key component that are called refrigerants, but a key component in modern air conditioners, in refrigerators, and other cooling products. Yet, the United States is already transitioning away from using HFCs. We might want to ask, why?

Well, one reason is that American companies are at the forefront of developing the next generation of coolant technology, the next generation of refrigerants.

This transition away from HFCs is expected to stimulate literally billions of dollars in economic investment in this country--billions of dollars; create tens of thousands of jobs; and significantly increase U.S. exports, all using technology developed in this country--all by using technology developed in this country; putting Americans to work, using technologies developed by Americans.

Now, first, some history on how we got here.

HFCs came about to replace ozone-depleting substances, which created a hole in our ozone layer. I said to some of my colleagues yesterday at a luncheon where we were, Mr. President, that I first remember hearing about the hole in the ozone, I think, when I was in the Navy overseas, and reading about it in Time and Newsweek that I got in the mail while we were deployed and saying: I wonder what this is all about. What could be causing that? It turned out to be a big deal and one that still plays out today in the debate before us as well.

But in 1988, this very body, the U.S. Senate, voted unanimously to ratify the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-depleting substances that was negotiated under President Ronald Reagan's leadership.

Since then, the global consumption of ozone-depleting substances has declined by--get this--by 97 percent, while our economy has continued to grow.

Now, that is good news. That is really good news. But, unfortunately, there is some bad news.

The HFCs that have been used for years now to replace the ozone- depleting substances have been found to also be bad for our environment.

So in 2016, the global community got together and amended the Montreal Protocol to also phase down HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons.

This is not the first time we have ratified an amendment to the Montreal Protocol. The Kigali Amendment before us is the fifth amendment to the Montreal Protocol ratified by the United States.

The Kigali Amendment was transmitted to the U.S. Senate on November 16, 2021--almost a year ago--300 days, in fact, ago. Each day that has passed without ratification represents a further delay in supporting American businesses, in supporting American workers, and in growing our economic and national security interests and protecting our economic and national security interests.

Thanks to American innovation, we now have HFC alternatives that are cleaner and more energy efficient than HFCs. And the best part--here is the best part: These cleaner, more efficient HFC alternatives are being manufactured, as I said, right here, right here in the U.S. of A.

In recent years, the American industries' leadership on transitioning away from HFCs created an excellent opportunity for bipartisan action at the Federal level. And to that end, our friend and colleague Senator Neely Kennedy and I introduced something called the AIM Act, the bipartisan American Innovation and Manufacturing Act. That was in 2019.

Our bill proposed phasing down HFCs in our country by 85 percent over 15 years--not overnight, not in 1 year, not in 2 or 3 years but phasing down by as much as 85 percent within 15 years, the same timeline as the Kigali Amendment before us.

So 16 Democrats and 16 Republicans joined the AIM Act as cosponsors with Senator Kennedy and myself. Additionally, a broad coalition of organizations, from the National Association of Manufacturers to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Chemistry Council, endorsed our bill, along with a lot of other American companies.

In December 2020, the AIM Act became law under a divided Congress and a Republican administration. It was a bipartisan win--a bipartisan win. It was an American win as well.

Now it is time to build on that success. Now it is time to seize on the opportunity before us and ratify the Kigali Amendment.

The Kigali Amendment is good for our economy. Implementing the AIM Act, paired with ratification, will help generate nearly $40 billion of new growth in investment in the U.S. economy by 2027.

It will also create roughly 150,000 American jobs--150,000 new American jobs--and increase U.S. heating, ventilation, air- conditioning, and refrigeration exports across the world by at least 25 percent over that same time period.

In addition, Kigali ratification is good for consumers. As EPA's data shows us, transitioning away from HFCs means average prices will be lower for consumers--lower for consumers, not higher. Something I think we all support in this body.

Ratifying Kigali will also build on our bipartisan success in the AIM Act by allowing the Federal Government to better protect U.S. companies from illegal dumping and smuggling of HFCs into our country from adversaries like China.

And then, lastly, Kigali ratification will ensure U.S. companies continue to have access to international markets so that modern, efficient, economical air-conditioners and refrigerators across the world will be stamped ``Made in America,'' not ``Made in China.''

So today, we, the U.S. Senate, have an opportunity to make that vision a reality; to build on the decades-long bipartisan record of success from the Montreal Protocol to the passage of the AIM Act a couple of years ago; to show our Nation and to show the world yet another time that bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. This is a bipartisan solution. This is a bipartisan solution, and it demands bipartisan support.

I hope our colleagues will join Senator Kennedy and myself and many of our colleagues, and, frankly, a whole ton of businesses across the country and organizations who support what we are doing, and join us in supporting the ratification of the Kigali Amendment.

Let's seize the day or, as we say in Delaware, ``Carper diem. Carper diem.''

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I want to thank our leader for his leadership.

None of this would have happened without your leadership. I want to thank your staff.

I want to thank the relative respective staffs on our side here and the Senators especially on the Environment and Public Works Committee.

I want to especially thank our friend John Neely Kennedy from Louisiana, who has been a great partner, and his staff and other folks on the other side of the aisle.

My mother used to say to my sister and me when we were kids, she would say that things happen in threes. I remember she would say things happen in threes, and given what the leader just said, I am thinking about threes and especially with respect to making sure that this planet is going to be around for our children and grandchildren.

But if you go back to the bipartisan infrastructure bill signed into law roughly 10 months ago by the President, we did a whole lot there, you will

recall, with respect to roads, highways, bridges, water, wastewater, water infrastructure, flood control. But that legislation had the largest--at that point the largest climate title that we had ever put in a bill of any consequence here in the U.S. Senate. That is No. 1.

No. 2 would be the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, that was signed into law just last month by the President and championed by any number of folks, including our colleague from West Virginia, Joe Manchin. I want to thank him and the majority leader for their good work. That was No. 2 because the investments, the clean energy investments we make in the Inflation Reduction Act, are just extraordinary--extraordinary.

Then, today, to pass the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol-- people might be wondering, who are watching, and say: What in the world is that? And I will just walk you back in time.

People might remember that I was a naval flight officer in the Vietnam war, and near the end of the Vietnam war, maybe after I had moved to Delaware, I remember hearing something about speculation about a hole in the ozone and there might be a hole in the ozone. At first, people dismissed it. I dismissed it. But over time, the concerns persisted, and the hole in the ozone grew and grew.

Somewhere along about 1985, some updated scientific information, evidence, emerged that said there is a hole in the ozone, and it is big, and it is getting bigger.

Our President at the time, as I recall, was not a Democrat; he was a Republican--Ronald Reagan. Under his leadership, we as a nation joined in the Montreal Protocol. It was finalized in 1987, where we actually say that what is happening here is exactly clear, and what that is, is there is a hole in the ozone. It was being created by materials that are in our air-conditioners or refrigerators and our coolers. We call them refrigerants, and when they leaked out of the air-conditioners, refrigerators, and coolers, they actually created the hole in the ozone.

So the question is, Do we have to give up our refrigerators, our air- conditioners, our coolers, our freezers? Do we have to give those up in order to take care and address the hole in the ozone? As it turns out, we did not, but what we had to do was replace something called CFCs, chlorofluorocarbons, which were refrigerants at the time and contributed to the hole in the ozone. What we had to do was replace those CFCs with something new. Science and the scientists came up with that something new. What they came up with was not CFC plus 2; they came up with HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons.

What I know about chemistry you can fit on a fairly small thumbnail, but HFCs came along, and, guess what, the hole in the ozone started getting smaller. We stayed cool. The air-conditioners worked, freezers worked, refrigerators worked, and the hole in the ozone started getting cooler.

What didn't get cooler was our planet because HFCs, as Senator Schumer suggested, are about 1,000 times worse than carbon dioxide with respect to global warming. We finally have realized that, and the question is, Can we do anything about it? If so, can we do it to make sure we stay cool or cold, if you will, and at the same time address climate change?

Some people say: You know, we can't do good things for this planet or we can't clean the air, clean the water, address the climate change, and create jobs and economic opportunity. But, as Senator Schumer suggested, that is just not true. This is sort of like having our cake and eating it, too, because we can create jobs.

A lot of them we are talking about creating with the phasedown of HFCs and for the next 15 years talking about creating literally tens of thousands of jobs not in some other country but here. We are talking about creating these jobs using technology developed here, and we are talking about the ability to export this technology and sell products using this technology all over the place.

I forget exactly what the economic value is from these activities, but it is in the tens of billions of dollars here, with American technology, created by American workers. Who wouldn't be for that? Who wouldn't be for that?

Some of our Republican colleagues offered an amendment today. Senator Lee and, I think, Senator Sullivan joined together on an amendment. I think most of us voted for that, and it has been adopted and added to this package.

The other thing I would mention is that about a month ago, you may recall, we stayed up all night during a vote-arama, working on the reconciliation legislation that led to the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act.

I remember the next day going home. I was just dog-tired. I went home on the train and got off the train, and before I went home, I drove to Wawa, which is a convenience store. We love Wawa. They are all up and down the east coast, especially in Delaware. I stopped at Wawa to get a cup of coffee. I got a small cup of coffee and went to the cash register, the cashier, to pay for it, and the lady at the cash register said: Your money is no good here.

I said: No, no. I want to pay. I want to pay for it.

She said: No, no. I am mindful of what you have been up all night doing. Your money is no good here.

I said: Could I get a larger cup of coffee?

She said: No, but your money is no good here.

She also went to say--she said: I have a son. I have a daughter. I want to make sure they grow up on a planet that is fit to grow up on and that they can grow old on.

I think that is a sentiment that almost any father or mother or grandfather or grandparent would feel and have. I would just say to them today: I know sometimes you look at what is going on here and our inability to work together. We have come together. We have come together on something that is extremely important for us, my generation, but even more important, for those who follow us.

Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. This is a good bipartisan solution, and for everybody who has been a part of this, I want to thank you. I want to convey our thanks as well to the President and his administration for their help in getting this done.

This is a day, as my colleague from Delaware, Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, would say--she would say: This is a day the Lord hath made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it.

Amen.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, while he is still here on the floor, I just want to express to Senator Menendez, my thanks, our thanks, to him and others on the Foreign Relations Committee for his leadership and for setting us up for great success--American businesses up for extraordinary success here today. The path is clear. We need to use some common sense and work together, and I think we will benefit from that and so will the men and women who have sent us here to serve them and to represent them.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of ratification of the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

I have worn many hats throughout my life of public service, including naval flight officer, State Treasurer, Congressman, Governor, and a U.S. Senator. Today, I rise to speak from my heart as a recovering Governor, if you will.

During my 8 years as Governor of Delaware, I realized quickly that my job was not to create jobs. That is not why they elected me. Rather, it was to help provide a nurturing environment for job creation--to help create a nurturing environment for job creation. More jobs were created in the 8 years that I was Governor of Delaware, I am told, than any other 8-year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I didn't create one of them, but we did work very hard with the legislature and with the business community and others to create a nurturing environment that made possible extraordinary job creation.

The most successful economic development policies were the policies that provided business with long-term certainty and predictability. As it turns out, that is not unique to Delaware or to New Jersey or to Connecticut or any other State represented here. It is something that we still hear from businesses across the country in all 50 States, and I am sure my other colleagues hear that message, too, on a regular basis.

That is why I am so passionate about working with our friend and colleague Senator John Neely Kennedy to ratify the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol.

During the Trump administration, we successfully enacted the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act, known as the AIM Act, which phases down HFCs in accordance with the Kigali Amendment.

Ratification of the Kigali Amendment, along with implementation of the AIM Act, will provide businesses with certainty and with the predictability that they need for future investments.

Ratification will unleash billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits--billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits--and create some 150,000 American jobs by 2027.

I am going to repeat that. Ratification will unleash billions of dollars in U.S. economic benefits and create some 150,000 American jobs by 2027. These jobs are jobs in my State. These are jobs in every other State throughout our country. Why would we ever pass up this opportunity?

Let me be clear to my colleagues. I am not the one telling industry that ratification of the Kigali Amendment is good for business and economic growth. No, I am not telling them that. Industry leaders are telling us that Kigali is good for their businesses. Everyone from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the American Chemistry Council, to the Air- Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, to the Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy support ratification for Kigali. In fact, it is hard to find anyone in the business community who is opposed to ratification.

I would like to share with my colleagues today one statement that I think is particularly noteworthy from the National Association of Manufacturers. Here is what they have to say on this score:

Kigali ratification will protect American workers, grow the

economy, and improve our trade balance all while encouraging

further innovation to strengthen America's technology

leadership. If we work together--if we rise above politics

and partisanship and focus on solving problems--we can make

our vision of a brighter tomorrow into reality.

But for my colleagues who are still hesitant to support the Kigali ratification and worried that ratification may hurt, not help, global competitiveness, here are a few points I would like for you to think about before tomorrow's vote.

First, I have heard concerns that ratification might benefit China and hurt the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the United States contributes roughly $40 million annually to the Montreal Protocol's financial assistance programs, which facilitate the transition to next-generation technologies, it is not true that this assistance goes solely to China.

In fact, China only receives a very small fraction of these funds. According to the U.S. heating, ventilation, air-conditioning, and refrigeration industry, financial assistance to China under the Montreal Protocol supports less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion refrigerant market--less than 2 percent of China's $37 billion refrigerant market. Moreover, China's share of these funds is decreasing, not increasing. In fact, funding to China under the Montreal Protocol has decreased--has decreased--by nearly 70 percent in recent years.

Mr. President, the truth is, the small amount we pay every year under the Montreal Protocol is worth the investment and then some. Through Kigali

ratification, American businesses are set to gain nearly $40 billion-- $40 billion--in economic benefits by 2027, according to a 2018 study by the University of Maryland. Ratifying Kigali will guarantee that American businesses continue to have access to international markets for refrigerants long into the future.

However, without ratification, American companies could lose full access to international markets for refrigerants after 2033, closing the door to billions in future economic opportunities for U.S. companies. Why would we want to allow that to happen?

Ratification also protects U.S. business investments. While China has doubled down on HFCs and the production of HFCs, a dumping of HFCs--and to this day illegally dumping HFCs into this country--the United States leads the world, I am proud to say--it leads the world in HFC alternatives. Ratification would protect against the illegal HFC dumping and smuggling. These are protections that U.S. businesses have sought.

I have also heard fears that ratifying the Kigali Amendment will somehow raise consumer costs. That is just not true. We are already transitioning away from HFCs similar to the way we transitioned away from ozone-depleting substances through the 1987 Montreal Protocol under President Reagan's leadership.

With the transition away from HFCs, we expect consumer costs to fall. Now, why is that? New refrigerants and related products run more efficiently. According to the EPA, use of HFC alternatives will save consumers and businesses billions of dollars in costs. Again, ratification means lower costs for consumers and for businesses while enhancing U.S. competition.

In closing, I hope our colleagues will join Senator Kennedy and me in supporting the ratification of the Kigali Amendment. This is a treaty that fosters job creation--a lot of jobs. This is a treaty that promotes economic growth. This is a treaty that strengthens American leadership. This is a treaty of ``Made in America,'' not ``Made in China.''

With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.