Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I have the honor of serving on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee--a committee you serve on--which oversees, as you know, the Department of Homeland Security since the committee was first formed. Almost two decades later, I remain convinced that the nominees we confirm to lead that Department must possess sound judgment, integrity, relevant experience, boundless energy, and the leadership skills that will enable them to take on some of the most daunting challenges that we face today as a nation. The Department of Homeland Security is a Department with a budget of over $50 billion and a staff of over 240,000 men and women. Its Agencies protect our country from ever-evolving domestic and foreign threats; they respond to natural disasters; and they help to secure our critical infrastructure. Unfortunately, in recent years, the senior leadership ranks of this Department have come to remind many of us as something akin to executive branch Swiss cheese, with critical positions remaining vacant for far too long or without Senate confirmation at all. In fact, the Department of Homeland Security has been without a Senate-confirmed Secretary for 21 months. Think about that--21 months. Meanwhile, there is no shortage of work to be done from the clear and present threat of domestic terrorism to responding to the SolarWinds cyber breach to helping distribute the COVID vaccine. Now, more than ever, it is crucial for this important Department to be led by men and women who have been vetted and confirmed by Members of this body. The American people deserve a capable leader at the helm of this Department, and I believe that leader is Alejandro Mayorkas. Ali represents the best of America. Born in Havana, Cuba, Ali knows firsthand what it is like for a family to flee its native land and come to the United States in search of refuge. He is a man of integrity and a person of principle who possesses a truly, truly remarkable work ethic. What is more, he may well be the most qualified nominee we have ever been asked to consider to lead the Department of Homeland Security. He has previously served admirably as its Deputy Secretary for nearly 4 years, and before that as the head of DHS's largest Agency, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. As Director of this Agency, he worked to combat immigration fraud. He directed and implemented the DACA Program to protect hundreds of thousands of Dreamers and much more. As Deputy Secretary, he led the Department's successful Unity of Effort initiative to improve morale in an Agency which previously had the lowest morale of any large Agency in our Federal Government. In fact, the Department that reported the greatest improvement in morale in the final year of the Obama administration was the Department of Homeland Security, in large part, due to Ali's leadership and that of former Secretary Jeh Johnson. As Deputy Secretary, Mr. Mayorkas also shepherded through Congress cyber security legislation to enable the Department of Homeland Security to better protect our dot-gov and private sector networks. I think he may have also had something to do with reining in the Ebola plague. Those who know Ali well will tell you that he is no ideologue. He has no partisan agenda. Rather, he is a thoughtful, policy-minded public servant who has spent much of his career improving the Department of Homeland Security so that the men and women who serve there can better protect our homeland. We have seen that he is willing to work with Democrats, Republicans, and their staffs to get things done. That is one of the many reasons that five former Secretaries of Homeland Security, Democratic and Republican alike, have encouraged us to confirm him swiftly. I know that Ali can do this job. He has already demonstrated that. And I believe that many of our colleagues here today know it as well. After all, Ali Mayorkas has been confirmed three times in the past, including once as U.S. attorney for the Central District of Columbia. Having said that, though, some of our Republican colleagues are attempting now to use a 2013 IG investigation as a cudgel against his nomination. As it turns out, we have seen this movie before. I should note that a number of those colleagues were not serving in Congress at that time in 2013 and most were not serving on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee when we considered Ali's nomination that year to serve as Deputy Secretary. I was privileged to serve as chairman of the committee at that time. In fact, I led the fight to confirm him. It was the toughest fight I have had in 20 years here. It is one thing to disagree with the nominee politically, but to continue to question Ali's dedication and integrity on the basis of an IG report, as some of our Republican colleagues have done, flies in the face of available evidence, including his decades of public service. At a time when our Nation faces so many crises, we cannot afford less than full support for this nominee. So I want to take a few minutes today to set the record straight, if I can. Here are the facts. In 2013, an IG investigation into Ali Mayorkas's oversight of a program within U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, known as the EB-5 Program, was conducted in a highly irregular manner, including through false leaks to the media literally on the eve of his confirmation hearing. As a result of the IG's public leaks and his failure to complete a report before the close of Congress, Ali was denied a chance to have any concerns fully litigated ahead of his confirmation in the Senate in 2013. Ultimately, the IG who initiated the investigation stepped down later that year amid bipartisan calls for his resignation. Last year, that same former IG was charged by the Department of Justice with 16 counts of fraud--16 counts of fraud Following Ali's confirmation, my staff and I worked to ensure that the subsequent IG completed the report into any allegations. In 2015, that new IG, John Roth, produced a report building on the work of the 2013 investigation. The report found no evidence of wrongdoing by Ali. None. What it did suggest, however, was that some of his actions as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services may have created the ``appearance of favoritism.'' In particular, it asserted that Ali met with a number of well- connected individuals over time regarding their concerns over the EB-5 Investor Visa Program. After Ali joined the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as its Director in 2009, he came to the conclusion that this program was not well run. He was not alone in this conclusion. Ali has testified that as Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, he received more complaints from Members of Congress, on both sides of the aisle, regarding the EB-5 Program than he did about any other program. In response to these bipartisan concerns, as Director of the Agency, Ali did what, in my opinion, many of us would expect an Agency head to do. He rolled up his sleeves, and he worked with his employees to gain an understanding of how the program was being run and to find out how they might make it run better. He directed systemic changes that included improving management and administration of the program in order to reduce favoritism and to combat fraud. He also proposed reforms of the program to Congress in an effort to prevent future abuses--reforms which, unfortunately, were not pursued by Congress--our fault, not his. And yes, as Director, he set a precedent for getting back to Members of Congress quickly in response to their inquiries, even if the answers his Agency came up with was ultimately not what they wanted to hear. Completing the 2015 IG report was important to clear Ali of any wrongdoing. But these findings and Ali's actions have been mischaracterized by some of our colleagues who assert that he showed favoritism by reaching out personally to the staff of former Senator Harry Reid over an EB-5-related issue they had raised on behalf of a constituent. As it turns out, though, the report is clear. Ali Mayorkas did reach out to that staff--not to deliver preferential treatment but, rather, to let the staff know that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would not be able to accommodate the request of that staff and their Senator. And why? If responsiveness to inquiries by Members of Congress and their staff, regardless of whether the response is favorable or not, is a problem for my colleagues--any of my colleagues--that is news to me. Let me make one more point, if I may. As someone who knows Ali and has known him for years--knows his family, knows his work, knows his ethic--I believe the 2015 IG report was missing some needed context. Let me try to provide it Fortunately, though, Ali provided it in a 32-page response. The response was almost as long as the IG report itself. Among other things, it describes how he met not just with Democratic Members but with a number of our Republican colleagues to address issues important to them, including international adoption and fighting fraud in our immigration programs. Following those meetings, just as with the EB-5 Program, Ali took appropriate steps to make improvements based on feedback from his constituents. That is what leaders should do. Those examples and others included right there in the 2015 IG report serve to further illustrate Ali's commitment to doing what he thought was right, to improving the Department by carrying out the law without fear or favor, and by responding promptly and fully to inquiries from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle. If Ali Mayorkas is confirmed today, I am hopeful that many of our colleagues and our staffs will have a chance in the years to come to work with him and his team at the Department of Homeland Security and witness for themselves the kind of leader he truly is. We are fortunate that an individual as well prepared and qualified as Alejandro Mayorkas may soon have the opportunity to lead the Department through the many crises and challenges it faces and which our country faces today. But you don't have to take my word for it. The late Tom Coburn, a dear friend of mine and former colleague of many of us, led the fight against Ali's confirmation in 2013, when he had been nominated to be Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. Tom was then the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, and I was serving as its chairman. Tom, sadly, is deceased. We lost a good man, a really good man, a couple of years ago. Tom's staff director of the committee, at the time, was a very capable gentleman. His name is Keith Ashdown. I think it is important to note that last week, Keith sent a letter to our committee. In it, he wrote of his strong support today of Ali's nomination to serve as Secretary of DHS. Mr. Ashdown wrote these words. He said: I first came to know Mayorkas when I was the Republican staff director of this committee [the Homeland Security committee]. At that time, I was working to block his nomination to serve as Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. He went on to say: With the benefit of hindsight, I am glad my efforts to block his nomination were ultimately unsuccessful. How often do you hear that? Mr. Ashdown went on to write: As Deputy Secretary, Mayorkas worked in a bipartisan manner to respond to the Committee's requests and concerns. He added: Having been on the other side of this battle, I understand the importance of vetting a [nomination] thoroughly. But no one has been vetted more than has Ali Mayorkas. Mr. Ashton concluded with these words. He said: I urge the [United States] Senate to expeditiously confirm Ali Mayorkas as [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary without delay. Without delay. Signed: Sincerely, Keith Ashdown. Let me close today, by saying that I am grateful, and I know that the Mayorkas family is grateful as well, to Keith Ashdown and to the Republican Senators who have broken ranks in committee and on the floor in last week's cloture vote, who have taken the time to fully consider this nomination, and who now support it. We are grateful to you. I sincerely hope that more of our colleagues will join them and us today. I would say to my colleagues, I don't stake my reputation on a lot of people, but I am more than willing to stake it on Ali Mayorkas, just as I have three times before in this same Chamber. If you are undecided today, colleagues, I hope you will join me this time. Ali Mayorkas will make us and this country proud. In fact, I believe, he already has. While we are waiting for folks to come onto the floor, I just want to explain to people who ask: What is this EB-5 Program? It is a program that is designed to bring foreign capital into this country to help build businesses and provide jobs in return for the ability to come to this country and eventually have legal residency here. That is what it is about. I want to say everything I do, I know I can do better. Every program that we have, even the ones that I helped to create, we can make them better. The EB-5 Program, which is a bipartisan program that was created, I think, under partnership with Ted Kennedy and Senator Chuck Grassley, if I am not mistaken, wasn't a perfect program, and it wasn't administered in a perfect manner either. The Constitution of our country has its Preamble, as we all know. It starts off with these words: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.'' That is what it says: ``We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union.'' That includes writing more perfect legislation and creating more perfect programs. When we find that they are not and that they are flawed, and that maybe some of the people who are administering them are ill-equipped with their skills and technology and backgrounds to oversee those programs, we have to make some changes. To those people whose feelings were hurt and those people who maybe had to find a different path in their careers, I reach out to you with a heavy heart. But I want to close by saying: Ali Mayorkas is a good man. He is a great nominee. He served us before, and he will do it again. Let's give him our votes.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, ``free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges of unfairness are serious, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.'' Those aren't my words. Those are the words of a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, rejecting President Trump's legal challenges to the Pennsylvania election--a judge who, I might add, was a longtime member of the conservative Federalist Society and was nominated to the bench by President Trump. Mr. President, the 2020 presidential election was hard-fought, but the American people spoke clearly and decisively: 81.2 million votes for Joe Biden, 74.2 million votes for Donald Trump, 51.3 percent of the vote for Joe Biden, 46.8 percent of the vote for Donald Trump, 306 electoral college votes for Joe Biden, 232 electoral college votes for Donald Trump. Accepting the outcome of an election can be difficult when our political party doesn't win, but calling an election unfair does not make it so. More than 60 Federal and State courts, involving more than 90 judges, many of whom were nominated by Republican Presidents, including President Trump, are all in agreement. No evidence of widespread fraud, wrongdoing, or other irregularities have been uncovered during the 2020 election. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues today ask us to do the same thing Donald Trump asked of the secretary of state of Georgia: to overturn the results of the 2020 election without specific allegations and without proof. Our colleagues are asking us not to abide by the will of the people but to bend to the will of one man, Donald Trump. In 1787, delegates from 13 States convened in Philadelphia to debate the future of our country. Our Founders disagreed on many things, but they did agree that they didn't want a King, and they set up an intricate system of checks and balances to ensure that we would never have an all-powerful King. That system of checks and balances is being pushed to a dangerous limit here today, but it will prevail. Here are just some of the claims Donald Trump and his legal team have made and that our colleagues lend credence to today: that Venezuela, Cuba, and China rigged our country's voting machines in favor of Joe Biden; that dead people voted in this election and they only voted for Joe Biden; and that poll watchers and election observers--who risked their lives during this pandemic to uphold the integrity of our elections--stuffed ballot boxes with Biden votes and shredded Trump votes. Not one--let me repeat--not one of these things is true. There is no evidence to back up these ridiculous claims. Many of these absurd claims from Donald Trump and his legal team are nothing more than conspiracy theories circulating online. This misinformation and dangerous rhetoric from the President and his allies, including calls for violence, have polluted our discourse and imperiled our peaceful transition of power. And when our colleagues show indifference or outright support for these unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories, they lead our nation and our Constitution down a dangerous path. We all swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution--not our political party, and certainly not any individual candidate. Colleagues, for the safety of our citizens and our Republic, we must lead by example and turn the temperature down. It was a hard-fought campaign, but the campaign is over, the votes have been counted, the count has been certified in all 50 States, and in 2 weeks, on January 20th, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn-in as President and Vice-President of the United States. We have serious and urgent challenges that will require working with our new President and Vice President and with one another, including making sure hundreds of millions of Americans can be vaccinated, getting our kids back to school, and getting their parents back to work, just to name a few. It is time to stop trying to overturn the will of the people and get back to working on their behalf. President Lincoln observed at the end of the Gettysburg Address that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, and for the people.'' Even in the midst of a Civil War, President Lincoln put his unwavering faith in ``the people'' to chart our Nation's course. We would be wise to remember Lincoln's words in this moment. We are not a government of Trump, by Trump, and for Trump. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. And the people have spoken. Our only job today is to listen to them.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, ``Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy. Charges on fairness are serious.'' I think we will all agree. ``But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then [they require] proof. We have neither here.'' Those are not my words. Those are the words of a judge on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejecting President Trump's legal challenges to the Pennsylvania election. I might add, a judge who was a longtime member of the conservative Federalist Society and was nominated to the bench by none other than Donald Trump. The 2020 Presidential election was hard-fought--we will all agree. But the American people spoke clearly, and they spoke decisively: 81.2 million voters voted for Joe Biden--81.2; 74.2 million voted for Donald Trump; 51.3 percent of the vote went for Joe Biden; 46.8 percent of the vote was for Donald Trump; 306 electoral college votes for Joe Biden; 232 electoral college votes for Donald Trump. Four years earlier, Donald Trump referred to that kind of outcome as a ``landslide'' for him, and he lost the popular vote by 3 million votes. But accepting the outcome of the election can be difficult when our political party doesn't win. We have all felt that before. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. More than 60 Federal and State courts involving more than 90 judges--many of whom were nominated by Republican Presidents, including Donald Trump--are all in agreement. That is pretty amazing, isn't it? All in agreement. No evidence of widespread fraud, wrongdoing, or other irregularities have been uncovered during the 2020 election. That is a victory for democracy, for our democracy. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues today ask us to do the same thing that Donald Trump asked of the secretary of state for the State of Georgia--to overturn the results of the 2020 election without specific allegations and, more importantly, without any proof. Our colleagues are asking us not to abide by the will of the people but to bend to the will of one man--one man--Donald Trump. In 1787, delegates from the Thirteen Colonies convened in Philadelphia to debate the future of what would become the United States of America. Our Founders disagreed on a lot of things, but, you know, they all agreed on one thing for sure: They did not want a King; they did not want a Monarch. Many of them had been there, done that. They didn't want to see it and feel it again, and they set up this intricate system of checks and balances to ensure that we would never have that all-powerful King in this country. That system of checks and balances is being pushed to a dangerous limit here today, but that system will prevail--along with it, our democracy. Here are just some of the claims Donald Trump and his legal team have made and that our colleagues lend credence to here today: that Venezuela, Cuba, and China rigged our country's voting machines in favor of Joe Biden; that dead people voted in this election, and they only voted for Joe Biden; that poll watchers and election observers who risked their lives during this pandemic to uphold the integrity of our elections stuffed ballot boxes with Biden votes, and then they shredded Trump votes. Not one--let me repeat--not one of these things is true. There is no evidence--no evidence--to back up these ridiculous claims. Many of these absurd claims from Donald Trump and his legal team are nothing more than conspiracy theories circuiting online. This misinformation and dangerous rhetoric from the President and his allies--including calls for violence--have polluted our discourse and imperiled our peaceful transfer of power. When our colleagues show indifference to outright support for these unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories, they lead our Nation and our Constitution down a dangerous, dangerous path. All of us who serve here swore an oath to support and defend our Constitution. I swore that same oath as a naval flight officer many times and as midshipman before that. But all of us here have sworn to support and defend our Constitution, not our political party and certainly not any individual candidate. Colleagues, for the safety of our citizens and our Republic, we must lead by example. We must turn the temperature down. It was a hard- fought campaign, but the campaign is over. The votes have been counted. The count has been certified in all 50 States. In 2 weeks, on January 20, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will be sworn in as President and Vice President of the United States, as they should be. We have serious and urgent challenges that will require working together with our new President and new Vice President, with one another in this Chamber--Democrats, Republicans, and Independents--and with our colleagues over in the House of Representatives. What is on our ``to do'' list? We can start with making sure that hundreds of millions of Americans get vaccinated--that we get off the dime and start vaccinating. We vaccinated 4 million people last month. We were supposed to have vaccinated 20 million. How are we ever going to get to 250 million at this rate? What else is on our ``to do'' list? We are getting our kids back to school. We have kids who are unable to get on the internet, who are unable to participate in their classes, and who may not have any adult supervision at home. They are struggling, and they are falling even further behind. We need to do something to help them. What else is on our ``to do'' list?--getting their parents back to work, just to name a few things. Think of all of the millions of people who have lost jobs and don't have skills anymore to fill the jobs that are needed. They need our help. They need to be retooled and retrained. It is time to stop overturning the will of the people. Let's get back to working on their behalf. Abraham Lincoln has been quoted a couple of times here tonight, but he observed at the end of the Gettysburg Address that ours is a ``government of the people, by the people, for the people.'' Even in the midst of a civil war, President Lincoln put his unwavering faith in the people to chart our Nation's course. We would be wise to remember Lincoln's words at this moment, at this special moment, in our Nation's history. We are not a government of Trump, by Trump, and for Trump. We are a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, and the people have spoken. The people have spoken. Our job here today is to listen to them. I intend to do that. I trust that my colleagues will join me in doing that as well. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield. As Senator Casey leaves, I thought his point about longest night and every day that follows will be brighter, and some of the provisions that Senator Barrasso and I, along with John Neely Kennedy, have included in the Nation's major budget piece of legislation ensure that it will be brighter. One of the pieces of legislation, as Senator Barrasso knows, deals with the phasedown of HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons. They are 1,000 times worse for climate change than carbon dioxide. Under the legislation that we have offered, it will phase down their utilization over the next 15 years by 85 percent. What is that worth? It is worth a half a degree Celsius--just this one thing, just this one provision. A lot of people on this planet think the biggest challenge that we face on this planet right now, an existential threat, is the fact that our planet is getting warmer and that we need to do something about it. In this legislation, we do take a big bite out of it. And my hope is what it will be is that it will serve as a source of encouragement for other Democrats and Republicans, maybe an Independent or two, to take other steps as we come back into the new year with the new administration and make further progress. One of the great things that I love about our HFC legislation-- thanks, colleague. One of the great things, Mr. Chairman, that I love about our HFC legislation is that it shows that you can do good things for our planet and create jobs. That is what I said: do good things for our planet in the battle against climate change and create jobs. How many jobs? Tens of thousands of jobs--in this country, in this country; billions of dollars' worth of economic growth--in this country--and at the same time doing good things with respect to climate change. Interestingly, it is not every day you find legislation supported by the National Association of Manufacturers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, most major environmental groups, and cosponsored by, gosh, two-thirds of the Senate--Democrats and Republicans alike. In that case, we have done it. We threaded the needle. I just want to thank the chairman for his leadership and for his patience and the staff in working with us. And our thanks to Rich Russell, your staff leader on the majority side; Mary Frances Repko, the staff leader on our side; and everybody who worked with her. But more than a decade ago, I remember standing next to my colleague John Barrasso--I remember standing right over close to where he is standing tonight, and a guy named George Voinovich came up to me--from Ohio. He and I had been Governors together for a number of years. Love the guy. He said: I am looking for a Democratic cosponsor for a bill. He said: Do you want to think about it? I said: Well, what is it? He said: It is a proposal that fosters collaboration between businesses, folks who have buses with diesel engines, trains with diesel engines, boats with diesel engines, trucks with diesel engines; and it uses some Federal money, some government money, in order to use technology that is available to reduce the emissions from those diesel engines by more than 80 percent. I said: Tell me more. And he told me more, and about a day or two later we signed on and introduced the legislation. He was kind enough to let me be his Democratic lead. One month later, it was enacted. I have been here 20 years; I have never seen legislation with that kind of effect go through just like that. It was pretty amazing. Every so often, we reauthorize it; we increase the authorization. We have done it again with respect to reauthorizing the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. One of the things I love about it is that it gets a lot of different stakeholders involved, and for a limited amount of Federal dollars, we can have a multiplier effect that can be, for every Federal dollar, $5, $6, $7, $8 that have come in from the private sector. That is the way we ought to do it. The last one is USE IT. Not many people think Delaware is a farm State, but we raise a ton of chickens. I think for every person in my State, there are like 300 chickens or more. Those chickens eat corn and soybeans. We raise corn and soybeans. Our farmers have land that is close to the beach. We have five-star beaches in Delaware: Rehoboth, Bethany, Dewey, and others. There is always pressure for development and encroachment on our farms, and developers are trying to buy out the farmers and pave paradise and put up a parking lot. What we have figured out how to do is--and it is not just--we haven't figured out through this legislation, the so-called USE IT Act, but what we do is-- the idea is to take carbon out of the air and to use it for a better purpose. One of those better purposes is to replenish the soil in my State, in Wyoming, in Montana, and other places so that our farmers will be less inclined to leave the land. They will stay on the land. They will be able to make money, support themselves and their families. It creates a virtuous cycle. That is a wonderful thing. I don't think we are going to be joined here yet--I called him just to give him a heads-up, but I don't think he is able to get here that quickly, but John Neely Kennedy from Louisiana was a big part of the work we did on HFCs. I just want to say, in his absence, a real big thank-you to him. I want to thank--gosh, I think 70-plus Senators-- Democrats and Republicans alike--who cosponsored our HFC bill. I want to thank our leadership, especially on our side but on both sides, for pushing to make sure these three bills would be included in the final compromise. In addition to all the other things that were accomplished--and Senator Casey and others talked about that--we have actually done some good things for our planet. Senator Barrasso is going to move over and be the senior Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee come January. I will remain on Environment and Public Works, be the senior Democrat. I want to say that this has been a wonderful partnership, just a wonderful partnership--fun, funny, serious when we had to be, collegial, and really focused on getting things done for Wyoming, for Delaware, for the other 48 States as well. So you are not going to be too far, and I will still be around. We will have a chance to work on other things. It has been a real joy to work with you on these three items, and hopefully in the future we will have many, many more.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to complete my brief remarks before the vote.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I want to say a few words about leadership. When I think of the word ``leadership,'' I think of Tom Udall. Leaders are humble, not haughty. Leaders have the heart of a servant. They realize that our job is to serve, not to be served. Leaders have the courage to stay in step when everyone else is marching to the wrong tune. Leaders unite, not divide. They build bridges, not laws. Leaders surround themselves with the very best people they can find. When the team does well, the leader gives the credit to the team. When the team falls short, the leader takes the blame. The best leaders among us realize they don't build themselves up by tearing other people down. Leaders are aspirational. They appeal to our better angels. Camus--a Frenchman--used to say that leaders are purveyors of hope. Leaders seek to do what is right, not what is easy or expedient but what is right. Leaders embrace the Golden Rule: Treat other people the way they want to be treated. The Golden Rule is in every major religion on the planet. He embodies it. Leaders believe that we should pursue excellence in everything we do. If it isn't perfect, let's make it better. And when a leader knows that he or she is right, they just won't give up. They don't give up. Those are the qualities that we all admire in leaders. To be totally honest, I fall short on a number of them. And I guess if we are all truthful, we would all say the same thing. He doesn't fall short on any of them. Tom Udall is the personification of what a leader should be and a friend as well. I just want to say thanks to his parents for raising him, bringing him into the world, and putting him on the right path, giving us a chance to serve with him. I also thank Jill, his wife, for being just a terrific partner with him. When we were stuck on TSCA--the Toxic Substance Control Act--she came to the hearings in the committee. He was no longer on the committee, but she came there, and everybody could see on her face that we better get this right or we were in trouble. The reason we had to pass the Toxic Substance Control Act is that the Federal law that we passed a quarter century ago before didn't work, and every other State stepped in and decided to have their own State version. It was a patchwork quilt. It just didn't work. He pointed it out and made it happen, made a change, and I just will always be grateful for that. The other thing I want to say is that he is a friend. I think if you talk to anybody here, they would say that he is a friend. I don't care if you are a Republican or a Democrat; he is a friend. My wife and I and our sons, Christopher and Ben, had the opportunity at the end of an Aspen Institute seminar in Tanzania, which was just an incredible experience, to stay for 4 or 5 days afterward and just travel throughout, go on a safari, and have a chance to see amazing things--amazing things. When it was all over, we went back to the airport in Tanzania, the Kilimanjaro airport, to catch a flight back to the States. I will never forget. Our son Ben, who is our younger son, said to his mom and dad and his older brother: That was the best vacation we have ever had. We talk about things we share with one another, but that is one that is especially close to my heart. Godspeed. God bless you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I today I am introducing legislation that aims to reduce traffic-related pedestrian fatalities in Native American communities while also improving public health and quality of life. First, let's be clear. Everyone in this country deserves reliable options to travel safely from one place to another. Everyone deserves roads that connect us to each other and expand our horizons. But the sad truth is that not everyone in this country has safe, reliable roads that foster connections and expand horizons. That is especially true in Native American communities. The adverse statistics surrounding the safety and health of Indigenous peoples are staggering. Vehicle-related unintentional injury is the No. 1 cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives aged 1 through 44. It is also the third overall cause of death for all American Indians and Alaska Natives, of any age or gender. While unsafe roadways put lives at risk, inadequate or unreliable transportation options create obstacles for everyday life, making it more difficult to simply access healthy groceries, schools, quality health care, emergency services and economic opportunities. Immobility for individuals within Indian Country reinforces barriers to education, quality healthcare, and economic opportunity. Meanwhile, Native American communities face disproportionately higher prevalence of diabetes and other heart disease. In fact, American Indian and Alaska Natives are more than twice more likely than non- Hispanic White Americans to die from diabetes. Cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of mortalities for Native Americans under the age of 65. While exercise can help to lower the risks associated with chronic heart disease, throughout Indian Country, there are few safe options for walking, running and bicycling. The sad truth is that decades of Federal underinvestment in transportation infrastructure has contributed to disproportionately higher rates of road traffic fatalities and poor public health outcomes in Indian Country. Unsafe, unreliable and inadequate transportation infrastructure is exacerbating a public safety crisis, worsening public health, and degrading quality of life. Investments in infrastructure that improve safety and expand opportunity for nonmotorized forms of transportation--such as sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian and bicycle signals-- can help to prevent more road traffic fatalities and also combat the prevalence of chronic health disparities that exist throughout Native American communities. To that end, the Promoting Access to Tribal Health, Wellbeing and Youth Safety Act would create a new grant program at the U.S. Department of Transportation to dedicate new resources for pedestrian-related infrastructure and improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout Indian Country. The legislation will also authorize $25 million annually for these critical projects. By improving pedestrian infrastructure across Tribal communities, we can save lives while improving health outcomes and quality of life in Tribal communities. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Feinstein, Senator Tester, Senator Heinrich, and Senator Warren, for joining me to introduce this legislation. As we celebrate National Native American Heritage Month, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue. Together we can improve the safety and health of Indigenous peoples across the Nation.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I today I am introducing legislation that aims to reduce traffic-related pedestrian fatalities in Native American communities while also improving public health and quality of life. First, let's be clear. Everyone in this country deserves reliable options to travel safely from one place to another. Everyone deserves roads that connect us to each other and expand our horizons. But the sad truth is that not everyone in this country has safe, reliable roads that foster connections and expand horizons. That is especially true in Native American communities. The adverse statistics surrounding the safety and health of Indigenous peoples are staggering. Vehicle-related unintentional injury is the No. 1 cause of death among American Indians and Alaska Natives aged 1 through 44. It is also the third overall cause of death for all American Indians and Alaska Natives, of any age or gender. While unsafe roadways put lives at risk, inadequate or unreliable transportation options create obstacles for everyday life, making it more difficult to simply access healthy groceries, schools, quality health care, emergency services and economic opportunities. Immobility for individuals within Indian Country reinforces barriers to education, quality healthcare, and economic opportunity. Meanwhile, Native American communities face disproportionately higher prevalence of diabetes and other heart disease. In fact, American Indian and Alaska Natives are more than twice more likely than non- Hispanic White Americans to die from diabetes. Cardiovascular disease is the primary cause of mortalities for Native Americans under the age of 65. While exercise can help to lower the risks associated with chronic heart disease, throughout Indian Country, there are few safe options for walking, running and bicycling. The sad truth is that decades of Federal underinvestment in transportation infrastructure has contributed to disproportionately higher rates of road traffic fatalities and poor public health outcomes in Indian Country. Unsafe, unreliable and inadequate transportation infrastructure is exacerbating a public safety crisis, worsening public health, and degrading quality of life. Investments in infrastructure that improve safety and expand opportunity for nonmotorized forms of transportation--such as sidewalks, bicycle infrastructure, and pedestrian and bicycle signals-- can help to prevent more road traffic fatalities and also combat the prevalence of chronic health disparities that exist throughout Native American communities. To that end, the Promoting Access to Tribal Health, Wellbeing and Youth Safety Act would create a new grant program at the U.S. Department of Transportation to dedicate new resources for pedestrian-related infrastructure and improve pedestrian infrastructure throughout Indian Country. The legislation will also authorize $25 million annually for these critical projects. By improving pedestrian infrastructure across Tribal communities, we can save lives while improving health outcomes and quality of life in Tribal communities. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Feinstein, Senator Tester, Senator Heinrich, and Senator Warren, for joining me to introduce this legislation. As we celebrate National Native American Heritage Month, I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue. Together we can improve the safety and health of Indigenous peoples across the Nation.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to share with you and our colleagues some of my thoughts concerning the nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of these United States. I believe it was Winston Churchill who once said these words: ``The further back we look, the further forward we see.'' So let me begin today by looking back in time--way back in time. More than 230 years ago, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, just up the road from my family's home in Wilmington, DE, our Founders debated at great length on how to create a different kind of government--an experiment, if you will, in which a nation's citizens would elect their own leaders, and a system of checks and balances would ensure that country would never--never--be led by a tyrant. Among the most contentious issues they debated during that summer of 1787 in the City of Brotherly Love was the creation of a Federal judiciary. Our Founders disagreed, oftentimes strongly, about what our judicial system should look like and how judges should be selected: Who would nominate them? Who would confirm them? Would they serve one term, multiple terms, or would their appointments be lifetime in nature? When the Framers appeared to be hopelessly deadlocked, members of the clergy were brought in to pray that God would provide the leaders with the wisdom to break the impasse. In the end, it apparently worked, and our Founding Founders ended up adopting a compromise very similar to one they had rejected just a few weeks earlier; namely, the President would nominate judges to serve lifetime appointments with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not surprisingly, almost 240 years later, we are still sparring over what those words should mean. Having said that, the blueprint that was drafted that year and later ratified by the 13 States would go on to become the most enduring and replicated Constitution in the history of the world. Among our most important sworn duties here in the U.S. Senate is to act as caretakers of that Constitution and the rights it provides for our citizens while protecting this unique system of checks and balances that provide the foundation on which our democracy is built. That brings us to the present. This past week, Republican Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance Judge Barrett's nomination to the floor of the Senate, but they have done so, I fear, at great cost to this body and quite possibly to our democracy. When our Founders carefully designed our system of checks and balances, they did not envision a sham confirmation process for judicial nominees. But as much as I hate to say it, that is what this one has been, pure and simple. This entire process has become an exercise in raw political power, not the deliberative, nonpartisan process that our Founders envisioned. Frankly, it has been a process that I could never have imagined 20 years ago when I was first elected to serve with my colleagues here. Over those 20 years, I have risen on six previous occasions to offer remarks regarding nominees to the Supreme Court as we considered the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Alito, Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh. One name not mentioned among the six I have just listed is that of Judge Merrick Garland. After being nominated by President Clinton to serve on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals--that is the top appellate court in the country--and confirmed by a Republican-led Senate with a bipartisan margin of more than 3 to 1--76 to 23, in fact--Judge Garland has served with distinction on our top appellate court since 1997, including for many years as its chief judge. President Obama later nominated him to serve on the Supreme Court 237 days before election day in 2016--237 days before election day. By submitting the name of Judge Garland to the U.S. Senate for consideration 4 years ago, President Obama, who was twice elected by clear margins in both the popular vote and the electoral college, nominated a man who spent his entire 20-year career as a judge working to build consensus and find principled compromises. Yet we never got a chance to consider Judge Garland's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court on this Senate floor. Judge Garland wasn't given a vote either in committee or here in the U.S. Senate. Judge Garland wasn't given a hearing. Most of our Republican colleagues wouldn't even meet with him, even though many of them had voted earlier to confirm him to, again, serve on the top appellate Court of our land. Judge Garland's nomination languished for 293 shameful days. A great many Americans believe that it is the equivalent of stealing a Supreme Court seat. A good man--a very good man--was treated badly and so, too, was our Constitution. Still, many of our Republican colleagues assured us that if the tables were turned later on, they would hold themselves to the same standard and only allow the next President to fill the Supreme Court seat should a vacancy occur during an election year. Then, on September 18, 2020, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away, 46 days before a Presidential election. And with her death, most of our Republican colleagues changed their tune almost overnight. Today, with more than 220,000 Americans dead and more than 8 million Americans infected with the coronavirus--not to mention 13 million unemployed--we are in the midst of an election, rushing to confirm a controversial nominee from President Trump, who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and was subsequently impeached by the House. Judge Barrett's nomination was rushed out of committee just 12 days before election day, in a process that many believe was a clear violation of the rules of the Judiciary Committee. Think about that--12 days. Instead of keeping their word, a number of our Republican colleagues are fast-tracking a nominee--and not a consensus nominee from the judicial mainstream like Judge Merrick Garland--as tens of millions of Americans are mailing their ballots in, dropping off their ballots, and lining up to vote. This confirmation process is shameful. It is unprecedented. If you have ever wondered what hypocrisy looks like, this is it. I know that many Americans, including many of our Republican colleagues, see in Amy Coney Barrett a well-qualified judge and, in Donald Trump, a duly elected President, and they believe a vote is necessary because, after all, it is spelled out in the Constitution. Well, let me be clear. There was no precedent for the shameful blockade of consideration for Judge Merrick Garland, and there is no precedent for confirming Judge Barrett just 8 days before an election. As my colleagues know, I am not given to hyperbole, but rushing to confirm Judge Barrett has the potential of altering, perhaps forever, the way the American people view the Supreme Court and the U.S. Senate. To our Republican friends, let me remind you that just because you can do this and get away with it doesn't make it right. This is wrong, and in your hearts you know it is wrong. Your actions stand our system of checks and balances on its head--in the end, only serving to weaken our democracy, not strengthen it. To those Americans who want to see an up-or-down vote on Judge Barrett, I understand that you may not share my views or my fears, which many other people do share, but let me stop here for a moment to share with you something that isn't widely known about most Republicans and most Democrats here in the U.S. Senate. While you would never know it most days by watching the news, most of us who serve in this body generally get along. While a lot has changed since Senators Pat Leahy and Chuck Grassley came here a long time ago, bipartisan friendships still endure, although they don't flourish as they once did. Many of us agree at times in hearing rooms and many of us disagree at times in hearing rooms and on the Senate floor, but just about every week that we are in session, a number of Democrats and Republicans still find time together for prayer and reflection, whether at Prayer Breakfast in the Capitol or at one of several bipartisan Bible study groups, including one led by our Senate Chaplain, Barry Black, who previously served as Chief of Chaplains for the Navy and the Marine Corps. Oftentimes at these gatherings we are reminded of the Golden Rule, one of the two greatest commandments: to treat other people the way we want to be treated. After serving here for 20 years, I remain convinced that our friendships and our ability to reach consensus on critical issues facing our Nation are based in no small part on our faithful adherence to that commandment, which can be found in every major religion of the world, and we are at our best here in this body when we follow it. I believe that true adherence to the Golden Rule calls for fairness in the way we discharge our constitutional responsibilities for judicial nominations, too, including nominations to the Supreme Court, regardless of which party occupies the White House or the Presiding Officer's chair. We can't have one set of rules for Democratic Presidents and another set of rules for Republican Presidents. The Golden Rule called for a vote for Judge Garland, and I believe that, today, the Golden Rule calls for hitting the pause button on Judge Barrett's nomination until the President, who is elected in 9 days, is sworn into office. Why? Because the American people deserve to have their voices heard. But you don't have to take my word for this. Consider, if you will, the words of our Republican leader, Mitch McConnell, from March 2, 2016, 14 days before President Obama had even nominated Judge Merrick Garland to serve on the Supreme Court, following the death of Justice Scalia, and a whole 7 months--a whole 7 months--before an election. Leader McConnell said 4 years ago: The American people deserve to be heard on this matter. That's the fairest and most reasonable approach today. He went on to say: Voters have already begun to choose the next President who in turn will nominate the next Supreme Court Justice. . . . This is something the American people should decide. That is what he said 4 years ago. Let's also listen to what the current chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham, told us March 10, 2016. This is what he said: I want you to use my words against me. Think of that. I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican President [elected] in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, ``Lindsey Graham said, `Let's let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination.' '' And finally, here is the advice of my friend, then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Chuck Grassley, following the death of Justice Scalia. He said: The President should exercise restraint and not name a nominee until after the November election is completed. He went on to say: President Lincoln is a good role model for this practice. The President should let the people decide. I am glad Senator Grassley mentioned our Nation's 16th President because I believe President Lincoln's example will serve us well, especially at this moment. Why do I say that? Well, after a Supreme Court vacancy occurred just 27 days before the 1864 Presidential election, what did President Lincoln do about it? Did he rush to fill the vacancy? Did he call the Senate to push through a nominee in a month's time, largely because he could? No, he did not. In the midst of a Civil War that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, Lincoln called for allowing the American people first to decide who would be President, and that person would then nominate a candidate for the vacant seat, with the advice and consent of the Senate. Nearly 150 years later, Lincoln's words give us a clear roadmap for doing the right thing: Let the American people have their voices heard before filling this vacancy, instead of rushing it through just days before an election. As we all know, the Supreme Court seat we are debating today was left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who served on the Supreme Court since 1993. We continue to mourn her loss. We continue to pray for her family and loved ones. Justice Ginsburg may have been small in stature, but, in death, our Nation has lost a true giant. Ruth Bader Ginsburg made it her life's work to challenge the laws and systems in this country that limited opportunity for women solely on the basis of their gender. She was a pioneer in her own right, but perhaps even more importantly, she paved the way for generations of women and girls who would come after her. Today, women can sign a mortgage on their own in no small part because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Today, women can open a bank account or apply for a credit card without a male cosigner in no small part because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And, today, pregnant women cannot be discriminated against at work in no small part because of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I am confident that her legacy will live on, especially in all the women and young girls she inspired throughout her remarkable life, but, unfortunately, with her passing, the equality that she spent her life fighting for is now on the line. Many Americans believe in their hearts that the threats posed by this nominee, the one before us at this moment, are real. That is particularly true when it comes to access to affordable healthcare, to the rights of women to make their own healthcare decisions, to voting rights, and, perhaps most importantly, to the future of our planet. The Affordable Care Act hangs in the balance with this nomination. Think about that for a moment. Right now, our country is in the midst of a public health crisis the likes of which those of us living have never seen. Over 8 million of our fellow Americans have been infected with this coronavirus. Over 220,000 lives have been lost to this deadly virus. That is more than the entire population of Des Moines, IA. We are consistently seeing 700 Americans die from the coronavirus every day. The front page of yesterday's Wall Street Journal makes it clear. It is not getting better; it is getting worse. As it turns out, America has less than 5 percent of the world's population, but our country accounts for more than 20 percent of the world's deaths from coronavirus. No other nation on Earth comes close to that. The numbers don't lie. Mexico, our neighbor to our south, has lost 88,000 people to the coronavirus; we have lost 220,000. The United Kingdom has lost 44,000; we have lost 220,000. France has lost 34,000, Germany just over 10,000, and we have lost over 220,000. Canada, our neighbor to the north, has lost just over 9,000; Japan, 1,700 deaths; Australia, 905 deaths; South Korea, just 457 deaths from the coronavirus; and we have lost over 220,000. While this carnage continues here and abroad, our friends in the other party continue to press the Supreme Court to throw out--to throw out--the Affordable Care Act in its entirety, not next year, next month. Meanwhile, nearly 13 million Americans are unemployed, and our unemployment rate, at nearly 8 percent, is more than double the rate from the beginning of this year. But rather than prioritize public health and long-overdue relief for the millions of Americans who are struggling to get by, our Republican colleagues have instead decided to fast-track a Supreme Court nominee just 8 or 9 days before a Presidential election. So why the rush? Well, to figure that out, all you have to do is look at a calendar. Just 7 days after election day on November 10, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case known as California v. Texas. California v. Texas--a case that was brought by 18 Republican attorneys general and the Trump administration--seeks to overturn the Affordable Care Act in its entirety--in its entirety. If confirmed, Judge Barrett may well end up casting the deciding vote on whether or not to strike down the Affordable Care Act, and we know from her own words that Judge Barrett does not agree with the decision written by Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act a few years ago. She wrote that the Chief Justice had ``pushed the Affordable Care Act beyond its plausible meaning to save the statute.'' Judge Barrett said nothing during her confirmation hearing to distance herself from these words. And what exactly could the consequences of overturning the ACA be? Well, for starters, those consequences could mean that nearly 135 million Americans who have a preexisting condition could be charged more for healthcare, in many cases making their healthcare unaffordable. It could mean returning to a time when insurers could design plans that excluded coverage for contraception and family planning, as well as conditions like pregnancy, mental healthcare, and substance abuse treatment. Overturning the Affordable Care Act could threaten Medicaid expansion that provides healthcare coverage to over 15 million low-income Americans, many of them living in some of the most rural parts of America. It would mean that young adults under the age of 26 may no longer be able to stay on their parents' healthcare plans. It would jeopardize the tax credit that over 9 million Americans receive to help cover their own healthcare costs. And that is just to name a few things--just a few. But make no mistake, overturning the Affordable Care Act in the middle of the night, in the middle of the worst pandemic in a century, will have devastating and far-reaching impacts on our healthcare system and nearly every American, including the more than 8 million Americans who will be left with a new preexisting condition: the coronavirus. Sadly, that is what our President and many of our Republican colleagues are intent on doing as we battle COVID-19 every day and in every State of our country. Having failed nearly 100 times to repeal or chip away at the Affordable Care Act in Congress, Donald Trump and many of our Republican colleagues are now counting on the Supreme Court to do their work for them, and they are within one vote--one vote--of achieving their goal--one vote. A woman's right to make her own personal and intimate healthcare decisions hangs in the balance with this nomination. During her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett refused to say much of anything on this critical women's rights issue, including whether Roe v. Wade was correctly decided in 1973. Interestingly, though, she did cite Justice Ginsburg and the so- called Ginsburg rule and asserted that it prevented the nominee--this nominee--from indicating how she would rule as a Supreme Court Justice on these matters. But let's actually look at what Justice Ginsburg said about Roe v. Wade during her own confirmation hearing in 1993, 27 years ago. Justice Ginsburg said: The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman's life, to her well-being and dignity. It is a decision she must make for herself. When Government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a fully adult responsible for her own choices. Justice Ginsburg did not deflect or refuse to answer the central question: Should women have the right to make their own healthcare decisions? Justice Ginsburg was forthright, and the Senate confirmed her by a vote of 96 to 3--96 to 3. Given Judge Barrett's lack of clarity on this critical matter, I am left to consider her past record and statements. My hope is that Judge Barrett would uphold nearly 50 years of precedence and maintain this constitutional right for women. However, my fear is that Justice Barrett was nominated because she meets Donald Trump's stated litmus test to overturn this constitutional right that an overwhelming majority of Americans support. Voting rights and the integrity of our elections also hang in the balance with this nomination. Earlier this week, a deadlocked Supreme Court barely--just barely--upheld a Pennsylvania lower court decision that allows mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania to be counted in the upcoming election. The vote was tied 4 to 4, which means the issue is not settled permanently. It means that Judge Barrett may very well be the deciding vote on many disputes related to the upcoming election. How would a Justice Barrett have ruled in the Pennsylvania case? During her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett refused to answer questions about the legality of poll taxes, voter intimidation, voter discrimination, and whether or not the President can unilaterally move election day. It strains credulity to believe that Judge Barrett does not know that poll taxes are unconstitutional, that voter intimidation is unconstitutional, that voter discrimination is unconstitutional, and that the President cannot move election day. Why can't he? Because--you guessed it--it would be unconstitutional, even if he tried. More than ever, we need Justices on the Supreme Court, along with judges on other Federal courts, who can be counted on by the American people to uphold the integrity of the upcoming election and on future elections. Based on her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this month, I am not sure that Judge Barrett can be counted on by the rest of us to ensure that--win or lose--President Trump stays within the boundaries of the law and abides by the will of the American voters on November 3. As it turns out, there is a lot more than an election that may hang in the balance with this nomination, and that includes the very future of our planet and its inhabitants. Over the course of her confirmation hearing, on three separate occasions--three separate occasions--Judge Barrett refused to acknowledge the plain and indisputable facts that climate change is real and that human activity is the primary--not the only but the primary--cause of our current climate crisis, which we see evidence of almost every single day. Hurricane-force winds pierced through America's Heartland this summer, flattening one-third--one-third--of Iowa's crops in a matter of hours. Our east coast and gulf coast are experiencing one of the most active hurricane seasons ever recorded, with more tropical storms, more rainfall, and more rapid intensification. One of our colleagues from Louisiana told me last month that his State is losing the equivalent of one football field to the sea every 100 minutes. That is right--not every week, not every month, not every day. Every 100 minutes, the equivalent of one football field is lost to the sea. Last summer, fueled by record heat, long droughts and as many as 12,000 lightning strikes in 36 hours--think about that, 12,000 lightning strikes in 36 hours--wildfires destroyed parts of California the size of my State. This past week Colorado has witnessed wildfire destruction that is almost as bad. That is not all. This year, recordbreaking heat waves simmered the coldest places on Earth, from Antarctica to the Arctic Circle, where the temperature reached 100 degrees Fahrenheit for the first time ever. That is right--100 degrees Fahrenheit along the Arctic Circle. Temperatures in Alaska reached over 90 degrees Fahrenheit for the first time in that State's history. Temperatures in Death Valley reached over 134 degrees Fahrenheit--the hottest temperature ever recorded on this planet. July was the hottest July ever recorded. September was the hottest September recorded. And, on the heels of the hottest decade on Earth, this year is on track to be one of the hottest years ever recorded--this year. And it is not getting better. It is getting worse. Yet, when she was first asked, simply, if climate change was real, Judge Barrett responded that she is ``not a scientist.'' I am not a scientist, either. I am, however, the senior Democrat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and like millions of Americans, I recognize the simple fact that you don't have to be a scientist to trust scientists. You don't have to be entrenched in the studies of science to know that it is gravity which is keeping our feet firmly on the ground. When Judge Barrett was later asked by one of our colleagues whether coronavirus is infectious, Judge Barrett said: ``It's an obvious fact, yes.'' She was then asked if smoking causes cancer, and Judge Barrett said: ``Yes, every package of cigarettes warns that smoking causes cancer.'' But then, when asked a third question--whether or not the nominee believed that climate change is happening, and that it is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink--Judge Barrett refused to acknowledge the simple fact that climate change and global warming are real. Instead, Judge Barrett asserted that climate change is ``a contentious matter of debate''--``a contentious matter of debate.'' Climate change is not ``a contentious matter of debate.'' There is overwhelming consensus among the global scientific community that our planet is warming, and that warming is caused by carbon pollution, largely. Climate change is real. We see it every day in this country and every day on this planet. It is threatening the air we breathe and the water we drink. The American people, and the people of our planet, see the effects of climate change and global warming every single day, and these are indisputable and undeniable facts, not a matter of debate. Judge Barrett's views on climate change stand in stark contrast to the science and the views of the vast majority of the American people too. They also stand in stark contrast to the views of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Quite simply, Judge Barrett's views are out of touch with reality, and that poses a real threat to public health, environmental quality, and, I think, the very future of this planet. Let me echo, if I may, the words of President Emmanuel Macron of France, who just down the hall here at the other end of the Capitol a couple of years ago stood before a joint session of Congress, and he called for our country, the United States, to once again lead the world on climate change. He reminded us, and he said: We have only one planet. There is no planet B--no planet B. In fact, I fear there has never been a more dangerous time to confirm a climate denier to a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court. Scientists warn that we are on the brink of irreversible planetary destruction if we do not begin to dramatically reduce global warming pollution. Over the next few decades, the Supreme Court will decide the fate of critical environmental issues--issues that will aid, or drastically curtail, the abilities of future Presidential administrations and Congresses to enact environmental policies that are essential to our survival as a planet. By way of contrast, Judge Barrett's predecessor, Justice Ginsburg, was a critical tie-breaking vote on one of the most important climate change cases in the Supreme Court's history, called Massachusetts v. EPA. Recall with me, if you will, that Massachusetts v. EPA affirmed the Environmental Protection Agency's authority and duty to regulate tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. It also provided the legal underpinning for numerous other Obama administration climate regulations that the Trump administration has been hell-bent to destroy. Just as the Supreme Court was designed by our Founders to remain above the political fray, our Supreme Court Justices should not fall prey to the blatant misinformation at the heart of climate denial. Sadly, during her confirmation hearing, Judge Barrett demonstrated that, on an issue so critical for the survival of our planet as we know it, she does not appear to be guided by science and is unlikely to be guided by the facts when it comes to global warming. That, my friends, should scare the heck out of us. These issues that Justice Ginsburg fought so hard to protect over the course of her life--healthcare, the rights of women to make their own healthcare decisions, voting rights, and the future of our planet--hang in the balance with this nomination, and for these reasons, I will not be supporting the nomination of Judge Barrett. Let me conclude, if I may, by noting that Justice Ginsburg did some of her most memorable work in dissent. During her memorial service in the U.S. Capitol, Justice Ginsburg's rabbi said: Justice Ginsburg's dissents were not cries of defeat. They were blueprints for the future. Justice Ginsburg knew that just because you don't have the votes doesn't mean you are any less right. Justice Ginsburg knew that a great dissent will speak to the future and just might eventually become the majority view. Today, we may not have the votes to stop this process or vote down this nominee, but that doesn't make our efforts to fight for fairness any less right. I could be mistaken, but I believe in my heart the American people will make their voices heard loud and clear on what I believe is a sham of a confirmation process, and they will do it on election day. Like Justice Ginsburg, the American people are dissenting against this process and against this nominee, and I believe they will be voting in record numbers. In fact, they already are. Judge Barrett may be confirmed, but let history show I tried hard, both to follow the Golden Rule and the example of Justice Ginsburg, and I refused to join the majority opinion. With that, I dissent, but I don't yield the floor. I yield my remaining postcloture time to the Democratic leader. I yield my remaining postcloture time to the Democratic leader. And I yield to the Senator from Washington State, my friend and colleague.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today, on behalf of myself and my colleague from Delaware, Senator Chris Coons, to pay tribute to Jennifer Cohan, secretary of the Delaware Department of Transportation--DelDOT--who has been a tremendous leader and public servant in the State of Delaware for more than three decades. Jen has served as the secretary of the DelDOT, since 2015 where, as the third woman to serve as secretary in the department's 100-year history, she developed and implemented the State's largest ever roadway infrastructure program. She previously served as director of the Delaware Division of Motor Vehicles--DMV--for 8 years and was the first woman to serve in that position in State history. After 31 years of public service to the State of Delaware, Jen is retiring from DelDOT at the end of this month. She will be taking on a new role as the chief executive officer of Leadership Delaware. In this new role, Jen will lead this highly regarded organization in its mission to recruit outstanding young Delawareans and help equip them with the knowledge, vision, integrity, and connections they will need to become the future leaders of communities, nonprofits, businesses, and organizations within the First State. As secretary of DelDOT, Jen contributed not only her intellect, innovative ideas, and immense technical capacity, but also an uplifting positive energy that motivated everyone fortunate enough to serve on her team. Over the course of her distinguished career with the State of Delaware, Jen has held a range of leadership roles. In addition to her leadership of DelDOT, Jen is currently the chair of the Intelligent Transportation Society of America, where she has highlighted DelDOT's work to prepare Delaware's transportation system for the future. Previously, in her capacity as director of the Delaware DMV, she transformed the agency by investing in technology and enhancing customer service. She also previously managed Delaware's clean water program at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and analyzed budgets for the General Assembly in the office of the controller general. As if that were not enough, Jen has also spent the last 12 years as an adjunct professor at Wilmington University, teaching leadership and public policy in the master's program there. On this occasion of your retirement from public service, Jen, Senator Coons and I want to convey to you the gratitude of all Delawareans for the enthusiasm, dedication, and entrepreneurial spirit that you have consistently brought to your many leadership roles and for your service to the people of Delaware. We also want to extend our heartfelt thanks to your family for sharing you with all of us for the past 31 years. In closing, Jen, please accept our warmest congratulations and best wishes and our thanks for dedicating the past three decades of your life to advancing mobility, improving infrastructure, and enhancing the quality of life for all of us who call the First State home. Bravo Zulu. God bless.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to add one thought. I was about to run and jump in my minivan and head to Delaware. The thought occurred to me, your father-in-law served all those years in uniform with the Army and then many more years in uniform with the Postal Service. I want to say to the men and women who serve in the Postal Service today, around the country and, literally, around the world--to the men and women who are serving in uniform, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard--I just want to say to the Postal Service, thank you for enabling our men and women in service, in uniform, who are serving around the world, to actually vote this year. When I was a naval flight officer in Southeast Asia during my first and third tour, I was in a P-3 squadron, and we did service surveillance for engineer aircraft--land base, South China Sea, the Gulf of Thailand, and off the coast of Vietnam. I was asked by my commanding officer to be the voting officer--and not once but in 1970 and again in 1972. We had 300 men. We had no women in our squadron then. But my job was to get 300 men signed up, registered to vote in their States--and they are from all over the country--and I did the same thing again in 1972. It was a source of great joy to me to know that we were able to exercise our right to vote on the other side of the world and made possible by the Postal Service. That thought occurred because your dad has been both on the sending and receiving side as a member of the Army and at the Postal Service. May he rest in peace. God bless.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague Senator Enzi for allowing me to be his wingman on this particular postal naming bill. I never met Robert Brown. I certainly know his daughter Bobbi, and I certainly know his son-in-law, John Barrasso, my colleague. Just listening to what Senator Enzi has said--service in World War II, service in the Korean war, service in the U.S. Postal Service--that is a lifetime of service. That is a lifetime of service. In my own family, my dad and my uncles all served in World War II, a number in Korea as well, and a cousin in the U.S. Postal Service for many years. I like to say--I know this isn't original to me--that service to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up on this Earth. Think about that. Service to others is the rent we pay for the space we take up on this Earth. I would say to Robert L. Brown, if you are listening--I think you probably are--thank you for your extraordinary service, and thank you for Bobbi. And we ought to thank Bobbi, your daughter, Mr. Brown, for sharing your husband with us. He is a good man. It is a good package, and we are grateful for that. None of us can live forever. Senator Barrasso was telling me--gosh-- not even a month ago about driving his father-in-law I think it was 400 miles or something from Wyoming up to maybe Montana for medical care, medical attention. I thought: What an extraordinary act of love and kindness. I don't think his death was imminent at the time, but it was a great opportunity, I bet, for the two of them to just renew and bond one more time. It is sad to say good-bye. None of us can live forever, though, and for those who lived lives of service like Bobbi's dad, we just say this, especially in Navy talk--I am a retired Navy captain, Vietnam veteran. In the Navy, we like to say of folks in the Army: Different uniform, same team. When folks do extraordinary things in service to our country, whether it is in uniform of the Army or whether it is in uniform of the Navy or the Postal Service, we say Bravo Zulu. Bravo Zulu. Thank you for allowing me to join you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Would the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER. He was one of a number of sailors on the USS Suwannee who was killed in a kamikaze attack, and none of the bodies were ever recovered.

Mr. CARPER. It is an honor to follow my friend Senator Whitehouse. You could only turn out well, my friend, with the bloodlines you have. Mr. President, I rise today really for one reason: I rise today to make crystal clear that we are profoundly grateful to every American who has answered our Nation's call to serve in uniform, to risk their lives, and in too many instances to lay down their lives so that we might remain a free people. We are profoundly grateful to their families who have sacrificed so much while their loved ones were away fighting to protect the rest of us and making this a better and more just world. We are especially indebted to those families whose loved ones left for war and never came home. It is a sacrifice that many Americans can barely imagine but one that has been all too real for millions of families since the founding of our Nation. One of those families was my mother's family. I never got to meet my mom's younger brother. His name was Bob Kidd Patton. My mom was a Patton. Bob was the youngest of five children, born near the coal- mining town of Beckley, WV, to my grandparents, Ray and Effie Mae Patton, a Gold Star mother. Bobby was killed in action on October 26, 1944, during a kamikaze attack in the Western Pacific on his aircraft carrier, the USS Suwannee. Among the bodies of the ship's crew who were never recovered was that of my Uncle Bob. On the day of that attack, he was--get this--19 years, 6 months, 23 days old. My grandparents were never able to see their son again or say goodbye. My sister and I, along with our cousins, would never meet him. Neither Bob Patton nor his Suwannee shipmates who also perished that day were ``suckers'' or ``losers,'' as President Trump has characterized others who answered our Nation's call to uniform; they were and remain heroes. I was fortunate enough to make it home after serving three tours in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam war, but 58,000 of my brothers and sisters never did. Their names are inscribed in a black granite wall not far from here so Americans will remember their sacrifice. Let me add that those 58,000 Americans were not ``suckers'' or ``losers'' either, as President Trump has described John McCain; they were patriots. Unlike Donald Trump, they answered the call of duty. My squadron and I were deployed to Southeast Asia as part of the Seventh Fleet for several of the years that John McCain was held as prisoner of war in the ``Hanoi Hilton,'' along with hundreds of other POWs. His plane had been shot down in 1967 over Hanoi. Both his arms and one of his legs were broken during the ensuing crash, and he was taken prisoner of war. For 5\1/2\ years, John McCain was held captive, beaten, and tortured. Despite this, he refused the early release that was offered to him by his captors. Far from being the loser that President Trump refers to him as, John McCain was the embodiment of courage, and my colleagues know it. He proved that again and again in uniform and right here in this Chamber, standing right over there. A number of us in this body have been blessed to serve alongside other true patriots both during our time in Congress and in uniform. The late Dan Inouye lost an arm and earned the Medal of Honor while serving in the 442nd--the most decorated American Army unit of World War II. They were all Japanese Americans who were despised by many Americans. They were heroes too. There is former Senator Bob Dole--another highly decorated World War II hero who was nearly paralyzed and lost the use of one arm after he had been hit by enemy fire while he helped to save the life of a fellow soldier. Then there is, of course, our amazing friend and our amazing colleague, Tammy Duckworth. God love her. Tammy, thank you for bringing us to the floor today. For any American to disparage heroes like them who gave their lives or limbs for a country would be despicable, but to hear that contempt from the man who is now our Commander in Chief and who chose not to serve in the Vietnam war because of, allegedly, bone spurs in his foot is worse than despicable--it is abhorrent. What is most surprising and really disappointing to me, though, is not that Donald Trump would use words like ``loser'' and ``sucker'' to describe heroes like John McCain and others. What is most surprising and disappointing is that there are only Democrats on this floor today who are condemning the utter contempt that Donald Trump has shown for our servicemembers over too many years. There should be 100 Senators on this floor today--100--saying, in no uncertain terms, that we have nothing but respect and admiration for those who have served and that we will not allow them to be mocked or ridiculed by anyone, including by the President of the United States. Honoring those who have served this country and risked their lives for this country is among the most sacred of obligations any of us has. If we can't stand up and defend those men and women, then we have no business being here. Let me close with this. To the millions of soldiers, sailors, air men and women, marines, and Coast Guard members who are risking their lives right now around the world and who have done so for generations, listen to this: We salute you. We thank you. We thank your families from the bottom of our hearts. God bless you. Stay safe. Come home. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. I spoke earlier of my Uncle Bob. I forgot that we had his photo, but this is what he looked like at the age of 19 years 6 months, and this picture was framed and could be seen in the dining room of my grandparents' house until they died. Alongside it was my picture. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am going to briefly remove my mask. We are about 1 week into baseball season. I will lighten this up a little bit. We are 1 week into baseball season. Some of us here are huge baseball fans. This is the home of the Nationals--home of the world championship Washington Nationals. The best two pitchers come from the Detroit Tigers, my favorite team. For those who might not have been watching baseball over the weekend, there is a young guy who is a relief pitcher for the Tigers. His name is Tyler Alexander. He was brought in in relief in the second or third inning and struck out nine straight bats. He struck out the first nine batters he faced. I think one other person has done that in Major League history. So, as we gather here today to figure out how to get out of this mess, his job that day was to try to figure out how to get out of another mess, and my hope is that our efforts here in the Senate, the House, and the White House will be as successful as were his. I am happy to follow today our friend from Maine; our colleague from New Jersey; and you, Mr. President, as the Senator from Louisiana, in actually pointing to something we can agree on. People are always saying to me and, I know, to my colleagues when we go home: Can't you guys and gals ever agree on anything? Well, as it turns out, a number of us agree that States and local governments could use some help--some additional help beyond that which we have already provided. That is a good thing. We don't have to pit blue States against red States. We can actually work together, and in this case we are. Very few of us actually come here and start our first elected job being in the U.S. Senate--some, but not a lot. A number of people are former mayors, former Governors, former Representatives. But every now and then, somebody slips through without ever having run for elected office. I am a former State treasurer. People call me a recovering Governor, but I am really a recovering State treasurer. I was elected State treasurer when I was 29. When I was elected State treasurer and took my oath, our State had the worst credit rating in the country. I was elected in 1976--the same year that a Republican named Pete du Pont was elected Governor of our State. He turned out to be a terrific Governor at a time when we needed one. He was a good mentor for me and someone I always looked up to, and I hope I was a good partner to him and Democrats and Republicans in the legislature to pull our State out of a real mess. Not only did we have the worst credit rating in the country that year--1977, actually--we had the worst credit rating, we had no pension fund, we had no rainy day fund, and we had the lowest start rate of new businesses of any State in America. We couldn't balance our budgets if we had to. In order to actually have money to spend, we issued revenue anticipation notes. When I got to the State treasurer's office, I said: What is a revenue anticipation note? They said: That is the way the State borrows money until tax monies come in the following April, so that we can actually pay payroll and pensions and stuff like that. I said: You are kidding. They said: No, we are not. That was then; this is now. When Pete du Pont was our Governor and I was treasurer, we had a bipartisan legislature. The house and senate were split between Democrats and Republicans. But we created a rainy day fund and never invaded it. We created and fully amortized our pension fund. We had no pension fund. We fully amortized it within about 10 years. We did all kinds of things, all kinds of budget reforms in order to get us on the right track. Now, I have heard some of my colleagues say the States got themselves in a mess and they are going to have to get out of it. They said they can file for bankruptcy; they are badly managed. Let me just say, my State is a AAA State. We got a AAA rating when I was Governor, and we never lost it to this day. Most States are better run fiscally than the Federal Government. You only have to look at the way we spend money around here--not just in the middle of a pandemic. Look at the year before the pandemic, at how much our Nation's deficit and debt increased. But even fiscally responsible, well-managed States like Delaware and some other States that are represented on this floor right here are finding themselves in a situation that one could not have imagined just a few months ago. That is especially true when we have an administration that is simultaneously asking State and local governments to shoulder the burden of responding to the coronavirus. Leader McConnell and Secretary Mnuchin say that States don't need more money because they haven't used the coronavirus relief funds that Congress provided in the CARES Act. Well, unfortunately, that is just not true. A survey conducted by the National Association of State Budget Officers shows that States have already allocated nearly 75 percent of these funds already to fight the pandemic and help struggling families and small businesses through this crisis. If States across this country see a resurgence in infection rates, the cost of addressing the health and economic crisis is not going down; it is going up. At the same time that the cost of addressing this pandemic has skyrocketed, businesses are shuttered, and tourism and commerce have come, in many places, to a standstill. That means that hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenues for States and local governments have occurred. Delaware is certainly not alone. So let me be very clear. This is not a red State or a blue State problem; it is a United States problem. It is not a consequence of poor management either. Over the past couple months, weeks, I have had conversations, as my colleagues know, with dozens of them on both sides of the aisle about what States and local communities across our country are facing as a result of COVID-19. In those conversations with my Democratic and Republican colleagues, time and again I have heard a familiar refrain: The pandemic has caused State and local government revenues to plummet in a way that none of us have ever experienced or would have or could have foreseen. Income tax revenues have fallen and unemployment numbers have reached unprecedented levels over the course of just a few months. Delaying Federal tax deadlines--while it was the right thing to do--has wreaked havoc on the ability of States to balance their budgets. Sales tax collections and revenue from tourism, gas taxes, and tolls have dried up as the virus has compelled many people to just stay at home. And States highly dependent on oil and gas revenues, as the Presiding Officer's State is, have been doubly hit by the pandemic and turmoil in global energy markets. Unlike the Federal Government, State and local governments have to balance their budgets. This means that Governors, State legislators, and local officials--mayors, city and county councils--have had no choice but to make deep cuts that will inevitably hurt the ability of their communities to recover. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Let me say that again. Since the pandemic hit our country, State and local governments alone have lost 1.5 million jobs. Those are not private sector jobs. Those are not Federal Government jobs. Those are just State and local, county jobs: teachers, firefighters, police, and more. This staggering statistic is bad enough on its own, but what does it mean if you aren't one of the one in every eight American workers who is employed by a State or local government? Here is what it means. Cuts to education budgets means larger class sizes. It means fewer bus drivers. It means fewer custodians at a time when schools are struggling to figure out how they will reopen safely this fall. I talked earlier this week to a number of our finest school superintendents in Delaware. We talked about--they are struggling--how to open up and reopen schools. As it turns out, they are going to have to hire more bus drivers if schools reopen--more bus drivers because kids will be separated. They have to separate kids. You can't put as many kids on the school bus. They are going to have to hire substitute teachers. If somebody gets sick and they are unable to come to work, they will have to hire a substitute teacher and pay for them as well. And for nurses, it is the same way. To be there to help administer-- whether it is taking people's temperatures or administering tests and that kind of thing, we are going to need more health professionals in our schools rather than fewer. Cuts to first responder budgets mean people must wait longer for EMTs and firefighters to arrive during emergency situations. Cuts in transportation budgets mean canceled or delayed infrastructure--transportation infrastructure projects--and fewer construction jobs when we are in the middle of the summer construction season. These cuts impact all of us and create a ripple effect across the broader economy. That is why economists across the political spectrum, including Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, agree that State and local budget cuts will weigh down our path to economic recovery, not just for a couple of weeks, not just for a couple of months, but for years to come. In fact, based on evidence from the last recession, one recent economic report found that every dollar in cuts cost the overall economy $1.50 to $2. That is one reason the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has called for additional Federal aid for States and for cities. The Chamber also recognizes that its lost revenue will force officials out of State and local levels to either miss payments or raise taxes in order to make up the shortfall. We know that this is impacting every part of our Nation. The longer we wait to get much needed assistance for our State and local governments, the more our communities will suffer and the more at risk we put our entire economy. We are here. We are sort of like almost in overtime. In fact, we are in overtime when it comes to the supplemental unemployment insurance benefits having expired. We don't have time to wait. Let's pass long overdue assistance. Let's pass it so that our hometowns and our States don't take an even bigger hit that we can't afford but a hit that is avoided. With that, I want to yield to some of my colleagues who are here to present their own perspectives, and we look forward to hearing from them. The first one, right out of the starting block, is a former Governor of New Hampshire--like me, a recovering Governor--and a terrific U.S. Senator, Maggie Hassan. I am happy to yield the floor to Senator Maggie Hassan.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the nomination of Derek Kan to serve as second in command at the Office of Management and Budget. It is not every day that I stand here and endorse a nomination--a nominee--of a current President. So I don't want anybody to have a heart attack, but I do want to stand up and say that this is a good nomination. I wish we had more like him. I am pleased that at least we have this one today to consider. Derek Kan served previously as Under Secretary for Transportation Policy at the Department of Transportation, where he served as a principal adviser to the Secretary and provided leadership in the development of policies at the Department. I have a couple of quotes here from two of my Democratic colleagues that referenced his time at the Department of Transportation. One of our Democratic colleagues from here in the Senate said these words: ``Mr. Kan, from your time at the Department of Transportation, I know you to be a talented and thoughtful leader who can work collaboratively with Congress and others to find common ground.'' Think about those words: ``who can work collaboratively with Congress and others to find common ground.'' Another of our Democratic colleagues said of Derek Kan: ``Derek Kan is a serious, smart person and a vast improvement over the previously mentioned names.'' That is a quote. I will say it again: ``Derek Kan is a serious, smart person and a vast improvement over the previously mentioned names.'' Now, that is not damning with faint praise. That is, I think, praise. I think it is well earned, and I just wanted to share that with you. He has been nominated to serve by this administration in a number of positions, and he has gotten the support of Democrats and Republicans-- not unanimous support. I wouldn't get unanimous support if I were nominated for something that came through here either--but he has gotten strong support, for the most part. I was pleased to be able to vote in favor of his confirmation to this particular position. He was confirmed--at that time it was as the Department of Transportation Under Secretary, and I think he was confirmed in the Senate by a vote of 90 to 7. Prior to this appointment, Mr. Kan served on the Amtrak board of directors, and he was unanimously confirmed to that position by this same body. He doesn't know this, but he and I have something in common. We were both confirmed--I was sitting Governor of Delaware, but I was confirmed to serve as the lone Governor at the time on Amtrak's board of directors. And I was confirmed unanimously. Somehow that slipped through. But that is something that he and I share in common, and he understands well the importance of the capacity of rail service in this country--in this century. Mr. Kan is also experienced as a policy adviser to our current majority leader and chief economist for the Senate Republican Policy Committee. To put it bluntly, I think he possesses the necessary qualifications and experience for this position. I have the privilege of serving as the senior Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee with the Presiding Officer, and this committee has the responsibility for vetting individuals who have been nominated to serve at the Office of Management and Budget. During the confirmation process, I had the pleasure of speaking with Mr. Kan and getting to know him a little better and understanding better his goals for this important position. Mr. Kan clearly showed that he is intimately familiar with the issues that he would be tasked with managing at OMB, and he showed that he is willing to learn and work with others to ensure that he is doing everything he can to work productively on behalf of the American people In fact, Mr. Kan committed to work collaboratively with Congress to help us fulfill our oversight role. This is a shared responsibility: oversight. We all need to be interested in oversight. You don't have to serve on a committee that is focused on oversight--the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. You don't have to serve on a permanent Senate subcommittee as Senator Rob Portman and I do--the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--in order to be interested in oversight. You don't have to be elected to the U.S. Senate or to the House to be interested in oversight. This is something that we all should be interested in and all of us ought to be focused on, and we need to do it in a way that is collaborative so that we sort of marry our fortunes together and end up with the synergistic effect where the sum is greater than the parts thereof. I was pleased with the words and the commitment he made to work collaboratively with all of us: Democrats and Republicans and our staffs. He also committed to working with the Government Accountability Office, GAO, to help them fulfill their critical oversight responsibilities. I might add, GAO, which is our watchdog, does great work, as the Presiding Officer knows. They have been faced with an enormous undertaking, enormous challenges, with respect to the COVID-19 legislation we have passed and the need for resources to be able to do a good job in being the watchdog that we need. I would just call on all of my colleagues to keep that in mind when we fashion the next COVID legislation and figure out how much money we need to provide for GAO to do the enormous job that is in front of them. It is not often we get a nominee in this administration who is open to working with both sides here in the Congress and is understanding of the needs for the executive branch to be responsive to congressional oversight from this administration. In fact, Mr. Kan committed to responding to all oversight requests from the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, including requests from Democratic Senators. He also committed to ensure that OMB responds to all requests from GAO. I know these commitments ought to be standard operating procedure in our democracy, which is built on a system of checks and balances, but they certainly have not always been the case in this administration, especially for folks nominated to positions like the one he has been nominated for. Mr. Kan's willingness to work with Congress and his clear qualifications to serve in this role are a welcome change in a Trump administration nominee that deserves to be recognized. For those reasons, I intend to support Derek Kan, who has been nominated for this important position at OMB. I urge my colleagues--Democrat, Republican, and an Independent or two--to do the same. I have the privilege of serving as the senior Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee. In our oversight role there over the Environmental Protection Agency, we ask a lot of questions. We ask a lot of questions of that agency, the leaders of that agency. We don't always get the responses that we need. In some cases we get the back of a hand--no response for days, weeks, months. In previous administrations, Democratic administrations where Republican Senators were maybe in the minority, they haven't always gotten the kind of response that they deserved either, but I think they have gotten better than we are getting in many cases right now when we try to get information out of EPA. I think the sort of spirit that I sense and have observed in Derek Kan, we could use that spirit from some other folks who are serving in this administration and maybe keep him in mind when someday we have a Democratic President and a Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate. So this is a vote I think we are going to take in a very short while, and I hope, when people come here to vote, they will keep in mind some of the words I have said and some of the words I quoted from other Democratic Senators and find a way to vote yes in this case. We will hold him up to high standards. I think if he gets confirmed-- and I think he will--that it is important that he continues to demonstrate the sort of values that I have found favorable in him today. I just want to acknowledge that it is not every day a Democrat gets to hold the gavel at a committee hearing, and yesterday Senator Grassley had some other business; he had to come over and vote on the floor and take care of some other business. There was no other Republican to take the gavel and conduct the hearing, and he called on a Senator from Delaware to assume the gavel--take the gavel and pound us all the way to the finish line in yesterday's hearing. My wife said to me last night: What was the highlight of the day? And I said that there were many highlights of the day yesterday, but that was probably No. 1 With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Iowa, Senator Chuck Grassley.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CARPER. Senator Wyden has some concerns about the legislation. Would he just take a couple minutes and explain what those are? Again, I think my friend knows that it is something we have worked on for 7 years--same concept reported out of committee unanimously, repeatedly, and we are still waiting to get it done. Let me yield to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his work, his efforts, and his tenacity. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, 7 years ago, the Government Accountability Office included in its recommendations--something called the High Risk List--a way for us to stop wasting money, which was not to send checks to dead people. It was called improper payments to deceased. The GAO said there was a way to fix this, a way to stop this, and it proposed a way to stop it. I worked with the late Tom Coburn to craft and introduce that idea from the GAO into legislation. It cleared the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee not once, not twice, not three times but, I think, four times. Since the departure of Tom Coburn, it has been cosponsored by other Republicans, including, most recently, by John Kennedy of Louisiana. Improper payments are a huge deal for our Federal Government. The Government Accountability Office tells us that, last year, improper payments, overpayments, mistaken payments, and so forth were about $150 billion. That is billion with a ``b.'' The GAO thinks we ought to do something about it, and it has been thinking we ought to have done something about it for a long time. The person who is the leader of the Government Accountability Office is a fellow named Gene Dodaro. He has been the Comptroller General for, I think, gosh, a decade or more. I was talking to Comptroller General Gene Dodaro the other night. It was right after it was reported last week that Treasury had sent out $1.4 billion worth of checks to people who were deceased. It actually sent out checks with the word ``deceased'' printed on the checks for all of these dead people, and one of the people who got a check marked ``deceased'' was Comptroller General Gene Dodaro's mother who died in 2018. I happened to be on the phone last Thursday--I was talking to somebody on my cell phone--when I got interrupted by a call from a woman in Delaware whom I knew. She was calling to say: I just heard on MSNBC that Treasury sent $1.4 billion worth of checks to dead people. Why don't you do something about it? We have been talking and thinking about doing something about it for a long time, and we are still talking about doing something about it. I think the time has come to do something about it. That is sort of where we are at this point in time. I understand this has been discussed off the floor for a little bit, and maybe one of our colleagues has an objection to the consideration of this bill by unanimous consent. It ain't like it hasn't been out there for people to raise objections to it, to raise concerns. They have had 7 years in which to do that, and for 7 years, the GAO has said to please fix this part of the improper payments program. This doesn't fix $150 billion, but it certainly is a good start. I don't know anybody in his right mind who would say we should send checks and continue to send checks to folks who are deceased. It just makes no sense. It didn't make sense in 2013, when the idea was first presented on the High Risk List by the GAO, and it doesn't make sense today.

Mr. CARPER. I think the concern raised by Senator Wyden is if the Social Security Administration is going to be sharing this information not just with the IRS and a handful of agencies, there is going to be some cost involved in that sharing. That is a legitimate concern. Speaking for myself--and my guess is speaking for my friend from Louisiana--if there is an additional cost incurred by the Social Security Administration, I am sure it is going to be a lot less than $1.4 billion that we have just wasted in sending out these $1,200 checks over the last several months. I will pledge--and will invite my friend from Louisiana to join me-- to assure Senator Wyden that we will work with him and his staff and the folks at the Social Security Administration to make sure that the Social Security Administration is made whole if the legislation that we have just apparently adopted here--if it actually is adopted and signed into law, we will make the Social Security Administration whole. That is a very fair thing to ask of us, and we should do that.