Thomas Carper

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague, my West Virginia colleague and friend: Don't lose that sense of optimism. It is going to carry us through this and, hopefully, well beyond. I live in Delaware. My wife and I live in Delaware. We live in the same house we have lived in for--gosh--33 years, and we raised our sons there and sent them off into the world. Every morning that I get up and I come here, I go to the train station. It used to take maybe 15 minutes from my house to get to the train station. Today there were just a few cars on the road--no buses. I got to the train station, and most of the doors were closed. Up on the platform, I think two people were on the platform to catch the train that ultimately brought me down here. A lot of people whom I passed by on the way to the train station, some people had slept out overnight--destitute, asking for money. Then, off the train station here, an hour and a half later, in Union Station, walking through the train station, it was almost empty. The train I had been on was almost empty. A number of the people whom I did run into walking through the station and out of the station, came out Delaware Avenue to the Capitol, where people were, again, destitute and begging for money. There are a lot of people who showed up last week and the week before in this country to ask for and sign up for unemployment benefits. They never imagined in their life that they would be in this situation. A lot of people who signed up in the last 2 weeks for food, what used to be food stamps--SNAP--food benefits for their family, they never imagined they would face this situation. My colleagues call me a recovering Governor. I was privileged to be Governor of Delaware for 8 years. I chaired the National Governors Association. The Governors who met on the 50-State conference call several days ago, I was fortunate enough to talk to some of them afterward and ask them what their priorities were. They said, among other things: We want to make sure, when people file for unemployment insurance, if they are eligible for it, that it will actually be there; and these State funds that were created, contributed to by employers in 50 States across America, when they are depleted, there needs to be a backup. They were pleading with us to make sure that that backup is there. I am encouraged that the package that is before us today will provide that liquidity, if you will, for unemployment insurance so people will actually be able to get not necessarily their full payroll or full salary--full paycheck--back but at least maybe enough to get by. The Governors asked that we--they use the term ``plus-up'' the SNAP program. We used to have food stamps. We now have something called SNAP cards, and they can be plussed-up or down remotely, electronically, and the Governors were asking that we do something about that to make sure that not only people have at least some kind of payment coming in, through unemployment insurance, to their homes but also something--some additional benefits for the SNAP program. I don't think we are going to get that. We made some progress on SNAP in the last package that came through a week or so ago. And we probably, especially, need to focus on food benefits for families who have kids in schools. Schools are closed. Those kids used to get their lunch--maybe their breakfast--at their school. They are not getting it now. Those families, especially, are going to need some help. The third area I want to mention is health benefits--health benefits. A lot of people who have very good health insurance benefits through their employer are going to lose them or face the possibility of losing them. There are going to be people--millions of people across the country--who are going to sign up for Medicaid who never thought they would be in a position to have to do that. The Governors are asking that we do a little bit more to help make sure that Medicaid, which is partly funded by the Federal Government and partly by the States--that there are sufficient dollars to meet the demand for healthcare through Medicaid that certainly would not have been imagined a month or so ago. I want to just mention a couple of things. I see a colleague from Iowa is here, and I don't want to take too much more time, but I am asking indulgence for just a couple of minutes. One of our colleagues mentioned today looking ahead to the elections and thinking about the elections. We have great concerns about election security these days, with the Russians trying to interfere with our elections again. We have a Postal Service that is in dire straits. The Postal Service, as we know it, has faced great challenges in recent years because of the lack of first-class mail. People have moved off first-class mail into email to do business and personal communications. The Postal Service is in dire straits. One of the ways we could help them is to expand vote by mail. Every State with counties and cities that have primaries and general elections would be a source of revenue for the Postal Service going forward. It actually helps address the concerns we have about the Russians interfering in our business. In the last week or so--I know my colleagues did as well--I called really smart people I know who have been leaders in this country-- people like Leon Panetta, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, John Kasich, and any number of other people--Democrats and Republicans--just to pick their brains as to what they thought we should do. Some of the best advice from people like Leon Panetta, Mark Sandy, and several others used the three Ts. I said: Well, what are the three Ts? He said: When you are putting together this package, always remember the three Ts. What are they? He said: They are timely--whatever we do should be timely; targeted-- it should be targeted; and it should be temporary. I believe that is what we are trying to do with this huge package-- enormous package. I never imagined we would be dealing with one bill of this size and magnitude. Timely, temporary, targeted--we have added one to that. Democrats suggested this, and I think the Republicans embraced this idea. It also should be transparent--transparent. I have a bunch of quotes I carry around with me on my cell phone. Sometimes I need some inspiration, and I pull out my cell phone and look at a couple of quotes. In anticipation of saying something today, I looked at a few of my favorites. One is John Kennedy. I think it is especially timely right now. One said: ``Let us not seek the Republican answer or the Democratic answer but the right answer''--the right answer. Another quote I carry around on my phone is one by Churchill. Churchill used to say: The worst form of government devised by man is democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest. What he was saying there is this is a hard way to govern. It sure is, especially in the midst of a pandemic, the likes of which we have never seen in our lifetime. The third one that comes to mind is actually an African proverb. It goes something like this: If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. Think about that. If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together. I think what we have coming together here is our Democrats and Republicans--and maybe an Independent or two--who have decided over the last several days that despite our differences, there is not a Republican answer and there is not a Democratic answer; they are the right answers. Hopefully, we get more right answers in this package-- which I expect we will be considering later today--than wrong answers. The American people are counting on us to pull together, and I think we are beginning to do that. I would close by saying that this is not the first package-- legislative package--that we prepared to adopt in the last 2 weeks or so. This is No. 3. People smarter than me say there will probably be a No. 4 and maybe No. 5 as we learn more going forward. The first one is pretty small, $3 billion. The second, which focused on a lot on testing, was over $100 billion. This one is many, many, many times that amount. I hope folks across the country will be encouraged that we were able to get it mostly right in the first legislative package and get it mostly right in the second legislative package. This one is huge. It took another week or so to pound it out, but I think it is probably better because we have gone slowly. I say to the American people, take heart. We have been through a lot worse than this in our lifetime--a civil war that killed about 800,000 men: families against families, brothers against brothers. Hundreds of thousands of other women, children, and old people were killed. After the Civil War was over, President Lincoln was assassinated. A short while later, his successor, Andrew Johnson from Tennessee, was impeached. We somehow made it out of that century to get into the 20th century just in time to fight not one world war but two world wars--fought them, led them, won them. The Cold War--led it, won it. And when the sun came up on January 1, 2001, here is where we were as a nation: We had the strongest economy on Earth. We had the most productive workforce on Earth. We had four balanced budgets in a row. We hadn't balanced our budget since 1968, but we ended up in the last 4 years of the Clinton administration with four balanced budgets in a row, with a Republican-led Congress. We are the mightiest force for justice and the most admired Nation on Earth. If we can get through everything from the Civil War through the first day of 2001, we can get through this as well. People are looking to us to lead. I hope and pray that later today that is exactly what we will do. I want to thank everybody who is working very hard on our side, our leadership, our caucus and the Republican side, their leadership. I was sitting in Chuck Schumer's vestibule earlier today, and Secretary Mnuchin was going back and forth, and Mark Meadows, who is the new Chief of Staff, was going back and forth. Chuck Schumer and others-- there was lot of activity and, I think, a little more optimism than I have seen in the last several days. America, take heart. We will get through this. I yield the floor

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this evening to discuss the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, which is oftentimes referred to as the ``Magna Carta'' of environmental laws. When I think about our Nation's most illustrious documents, I am reminded of the true expression of America and its aspirations. I am reminded of our Declaration of Independence and its embrace of ``Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'' I am also reminded of our Constitution. Delaware is known as the First State because we were the first State to ratify the Constitution, December 7, 1787--one week before anybody else. Our Constitution is the most replicated and enduring Constitution in the history of the world. It is not entirely unlike our more recent expressions of America's values and guiding principles, like the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, or NEPA. NEPA has served as one of our bedrock environmental laws for a half century now. According to its six pages of statute, NEPA's purpose includes ``efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man.'' NEPA enshrines democracy by giving the American people a voice to help decide the fate of Federal decisions. For 50 years, NEPA has sought to ensure environmental protection, public health, and the notion that the American people have a say in Federal decision making. Like our Constitution, NEPA is one of our Nation's most replicated laws. The same principles of democracy and citizen participation that are enshrined in our Constitution are also enshrined in NEPA. We have made changes to our Constitution over the years, but those changes were made rarely and with great forethought. However, just 60 days ago, the Trump administration proposed a rule that would fundamentally change the NEPA regulation for the first time in its 50-year history. Earlier this month, I testified at the Council on Environmental Quality's public hearing in Washington, DC. There, I stated that unlike the Ten Commandments, the NEPA regulations are not written in stone. I understand that. In 1978, there was broad consensus to finalize the NEPA regulations. If we had that same kind of broad consensus today to update certain NEPA provisions, this would be another story. After all, I have said oftentimes that if something isn't perfect, let's make it better. But there is a reason that NEPA is one of the most imitated environmental laws on this planet--it has had a lot of success. Any changes to the implementing regulations of this bedrock law--let alone such substantial changes proposed by the Council on Environment Quality to NEPA regulations--require careful thought, meticulous deliberations, and bipartisanship. Consequential changes should be made rarely and with great forethought. Speaking of bipartisanship, one of our nominees before the Environment and Public Works last year, nominated for a senior position in the Department of Interior, said, in these words: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. That is what he said. He is a Republican, from Wyoming. He said: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. NEPA was signed into law 50 years ago by a Republican President, Richard Nixon. NEPA was passed in this body by a bipartisan majority. NEPA was passed in the House by a bipartisan majority. The reason why it is still alive and well and functioning, protecting our environment, is because it is a bipartisan solution, and it has helped make it a lasting solution. Any changes--any changes to the implementing regulations of this bedrock law, let alone the kind of changes sought by CEQ, require a lot more careful thought, deliberation, and bipartisanship. CEQ simply has not aimed to address the needs of all the stakeholders. Witness the universal opposition of the environmental community, NEPA's most consistent constituency. Council on Environmental Quality has touted this proposal--their proposal now--as a way to ``modernize'' NEPA. However, the proposal is instead an anachronism, taking us back to a time when construction bulldozed and disconnected communities, before NEPA was enacted in 1970. This proposal casts aside any consideration of frontline communities, as well as the severe environmental consequences that come with eliminating the requirement to consider cumulative environmental impacts and indirect effects. Taking away that requirement is akin to creating a new NEPA mandate that would exclude the impact to air quality--or water quality--from a proposed action. Simply put, it makes no sense. Not only is removing these requirements a bad idea for public health and for our environment, but doing so will end up costing taxpayers more when projects aren't built to be resilient and, as a result, taxpayer investments are quite literally washed away by the next big storm or flood. What is more, this proposal gives the fox the keys to the henhouse by allowing companies to write their own environmental impact statements. Think about that--by allowing companies to write their own environmental impact statements. That is a little bit like offering students self-graded, take-home exams. This proposal also creates loopholes to avoid environmental review and public input, which is especially harmful to environmental justice communities that are often the targets of industrial investments and projects. I take no joy in saying this, but the proposal before us is one that is, sadly, myopic and ideologically driven. I have repeatedly called on CEQ to withdraw this proposal, and I do so again today. Along with the policy, I must also mention CEQ's refusal to open this notice to proposed rulemaking to greater public involvement that is commensurate with its gravity and scope. In rebuttal to repeated concerns from more than 160 Members of Congress, and literally hundreds--hundreds--of stakeholder organizations, CEQ stated that it is ``engaging in extensive public outreach, including through requests for public comments, two hearings and other outreach''--two hearings in the whole country. Just last week, with only three full business days prior to the close of the comment period, CEQ finally told 166 other Members of Congress and me that it would refuse to extend the public comment period, thus providing the public as little opportunity as possible to have their voices heard. Both CEQ's reply and its public statements make clear that CEQ believes it somehow deserves extra credit for allowing the public to participate in this rulemaking. Public involvement means not only an opportunity to comment, it means taking those comments seriously by CEQ. Let me be clear. Neither this CEQ nor any Council on Environmental Quality gets extra credit for the mere act of requesting public comments on America's bedrock environmental law. CEQ certainly does not deserve extra credit for allowing only 60 days to review and comment on this massive environmental protection rollback. CEQ also does not get extra credit for only two hearings in the entire country--two hearings--to receive public comment. At these hearings, the public needed a ticket and only got 3 minutes to speak. Think about that: 3 minutes for a law that has been around for a half century that is a basic bedrock environmental law, 3 minutes; constraining comments to a couple of minutes; the idea of requiring tickets, as if it is some kind of prize to participate in something that should be a democratic norm; and the idea of CEQ failing to engage a single speaker in Denver or Washington, DC. Think about that: not engaging even one speaker in the two places where the public actually had the opportunity to comment. Not one. That doesn't constitute an open process, not where I come from. I think it probably doesn't for most other folks as well. It doesn't come close. What we have here is a clear sign that CEQ is limiting the involvement of the public and wants the clock to expire before the public can find out what is actually in the massive rewrite. That is what it is. To say I am disappointed with CEQ's response is an understatement. NEPA is a 50-year-old law, but Americans have only been given 60 days to defend it. I will go back to what I said before. No law is written in stone. The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of our country are not written in stone. Everything we do, I know we can do better. But the way CEQ has approached this task, this undertaking, is not just disappointing, I think it is shameful. NEPA reminds us that our government is one that is of the people, for the people, and by the people. But this proposal and this process bear--what I just described--little resemblance to those words of Abraham Lincoln. Sadly, they make a mockery of them. Let me be clear. I will continue to fight to defend NEPA and the democratic tools it avails to the American people. I yield the floor to my friend from Oklahoma.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Louisiana for his leadership and for his courage in not just helping to develop this proposal that we have offered in a legislative forum but in trying to make sure that it gets the debate it needs and the vote it needs on this floor. For a couple of centuries, Members of the Senate would introduce legislation, and that legislation would be debated. Democrats and Republicans would have the opportunity to offer amendments to that legislation and to get votes on that legislation and on their amendments. We would hammer out a compromise in the Senate and eventually with the House and with whoever was President. The Presiding Officer may remember an old movie called ``The Way We Were.'' That is the way we were, and we need desperately to get back to the way we were when we were the world's greatest deliberative body. A good way to get started on that path is by supporting the legislation that my friend from Louisiana and I have coauthored with the support of a broad coalition of Senators and with the support of the business community and the environmental community as well. Our amendment, as Senator Kennedy has described today, is identical to legislation called the American Innovation and Manufacturing Act. I am not a really big one for acronyms, but the acronym that the Senator has used is AIM, the AIM Act. It is currently supported by a bipartisan group of 32 Senators--16 Republicans and 16 Democrats. I would describe this as Noah's Ark, whereby, for every Republican, we add a Democrat and on and on and on. Even today, we are continuing to add sponsors and cosponsors to our bill and to this amendment. This amendment, like the stand-alone bill, would save consumers money; it would create jobs; it would support economic growth; and it would help us to address the climate crisis. This amendment would authorize the EPA to implement a phase-down of the production and consumption of something called hydrofluorocarbons, known as HFCs, over the next 15 years. HFCs are used as coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners. They are substances that help to make sure our air conditioners work and our freezers work and our refrigerators work, among other things, and that our chillers work. Unfortunately, what came before the HFCs was bad for our ozone and our planet, and it created a big hole in the ozone layer of our planet. We figured out that it was not good. It turned out to be the refrigerants that we were using that were causing it. Scientists came along and said: Let's replace them. Let's get rid of those CFCs and replace them with something that doesn't give us a hole in the ozone layer. Guess what. HFCs work. They do. They do a really good job at that. That is the good news. The bad news is these hydrofluorocarbons are 1,000 times worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas--1,000 times worse. So they are good on the one hand and are bad on the other hand. So the scientists go to work again. Scientists in this country and businesses in this country go to work and ask: What can we do about this? They have come up with a replacement to replace the HFCs--1,000 times worse as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We also have the opportunity, in using American technology, to put Americans to work in selling these products not just in America but around the world. American companies have invested literally billions of dollars to produce and sell the next-generation technology to replace HFCs. Our amendment protects those investments. Again, the amendment is good for consumers, and I will explain why. The amendment drives the deployment of more efficient air-conditioning and refrigeration products and equipment. It reduces energy and upkeep costs as well. How much? What is it worth in terms of saving money for consumers? Apparently, the EPA has calculated it through its own economic analysis, and it has come up with a number that says that over the next 15 years, our legislation would save consumers $3.7 billion-- not millions but billions of dollars. Our amendment is good for American jobs. The chamber of commerce expects our legislation to result in the creation of 150,000 additional direct and indirect jobs in this country in the years to come--150,000 additional, good-paying jobs. Our amendment is good for our economy. Our legislation is expected to improve the trade imbalance in chemicals and equipment by $12.5 billion, which is something we need to do, and it is expected to increase manufacturing output close to $39 billion over the next 7 years. Oh, by the way--P.S.--our amendment is good for the planet we live on and the people who inhabit it. We will end up joining the rest of the world to phase out HFCs, which will help to avoid an increase of up to a half a degree Celsius in our climate, in our temperature on this planet. All of these are win-wins. They are all win-wins. They are the reason that our legislation has such broad support from stakeholders. Our legislation is supported by an unlikely coalition. As Senator Kennedy said, it is not every day that you find the lamb and the lion lying down together in their finding a common cause. Yet, in this case, there is a whole host of environmental groups, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and other business groups, a lot of Democrats, a lot of Republicans, and maybe one or two Independents. I mean, it is a great coalition, and it is one that I am proud of in my having worked with Senator Kennedy to create. We do all of this with the broad support of this unlikely coalition. Our legislation doesn't preempt the roles of States. With that said, I know that some of our colleagues have called for adding to this amendment new preemption authorities that would prevent States from addressing HFCs. My response to them is that there are reasons this is not an issue to be addressed at this time. And as we have seen with TSCA and the California waiver for vehicle standards, this administration doesn't seem keen on following the law, and there is no guarantee that if we require EPA to phase out HFCs that the Trump EPA will do so in a timely manner or in a legally defensible way. Allowing the States to act helps hold the Federal Government accountable. However, once a strong Federal program is in place, States will not need to act and will spend their resources elsewhere. We have seen this happen before with programs similar to the one this amendment would create. I would like to add that many of my colleagues in this Chamber have stated that they support innovation to help achieve our climate and clean energy goals. The Federal Government has many tools to drive innovation--many tools to drive innovation--Federal funding, Federal procurement, and also regulation. There is a reason we have broad support from the business community. Businesses know that regulation will further drive innovation and U.S. investments. Without the regulations that would be created if this amendment were adopted, the United States will continue to lose global leadership in the production of HFC alternative technologies. And let me just add a P.S. I know some people think climate change is a hoax; it is not real. My wife and some of her colleagues from the DuPont Company that she worked with for years traveled to Antarctica earlier this year. They spent a couple weeks down there, an incredible trip, learned a lot, and they came back and I said: How warm was it down there? She said it was in the thirties--rarely below, not above. She came back about 5, 6 weeks ago. In the weeks since then, the record-high temperature in Antarctica, South Pole, hit 63 degrees. That record lasted for about a week, and it was replaced by a new record, 65. That lasted for about another week or two. That was broken by another record. I think it was 67 or 68 degrees--like that. A piece of Antarctica about the size of the District of Columbia fell off into the ocean. Something is happening here. Something is happening here, and I think what it is, is getting to be pretty clear. Here is the good news. The good news is we can address that concern, that problem, which is not a hoax, and we can do so in ways that create tens of thousands of jobs, billions of dollars in exports, all kinds of economic opportunity, innovation, and technology that we would celebrate, and we should celebrate. We need to support this amendment. I just want to again thank my colleague for his leadership, for allowing me to be his wingman in this effort, and I look forward to garnering the support of a broad coalition of our colleagues. It is the right thing do. Let's do it.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the Senator for yielding to me. Madam President, former Senator and Vice President Joe Biden was blessed with many wonderful staff members over the years, and one of them was John DiEleuterio. I would like to take just 3 minutes to mention him. He just passed away. He was a giant in the State of Delaware and also served in the military. Remembering John M. DiEleuterio Madam President, I rise today on behalf of Delaware's congressional delegation, Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, in tribute to John M. DiEleuterio, a dedicated public servant who proudly served our State and country throughout his long career and life. John was what I call a happy warrior--in the military for many years and in his service to the people of Delaware. He supported a multitude of nonprofits that focused on helping people in need. He was a person who loved people, and they loved him just as much. John exemplified what it means to be the ``go-to person'' to get things done. His relationships and friendships with people throughout our State enabled him to get things done with speed and dispatch and, I would add, with a sense of joy. John's persistence and innate ability to work a room and make connections, his strong work ethic and ever-present sense of humor was the core of what made John so successful. His impressive career included serving as State director--and you know how important our State directors are in New Mexico, Delaware, and Tennessee. He was State director for then-Senator Joe Biden, his longtime friend and former University of Delaware classmate. They were classmates together for a number of years. His service included more than 30 years of combined service as a decorated officer in both the Delaware and Maryland Army National Guard. He had an impressive career for over 26 years with the Campbell Soup Company as their vice president of human resources. In addition, John gave freely of his time serving all kinds of community groups, including serving on the board of the Delaware Military Academy, a blue-ribbon public high school. He served on the board of Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge, the Leukemia Society of America, the U.S. Service Academy Selection Committee, the Cavaliers Country Club, St. Anthony's Communion Committee, and New Castle County Ethics Commission, among others. He was equally committed to his family, including his wonderful wife Marlene for 30 years, their children and grandchild, and the many friends he made along the way, and they are legion. So on behalf of Senator Chris Coons and Congresswoman Lisa Blunt Rochester, I am privileged to rise today to evoke the name of our dear friend John DiEleuterio. People from many walks of life loved serving with him, loved being with him. I am certainly one of them. The people of Delaware and our country are very fortunate to count John as a fellow Delawarean, and it is a far better place to live and work because of his stewardship. I will close with the words of another beloved Delawarean who used to say this: If you want to be happy for an hour, take a nap. If you want to be happy for a week, take a vacation. If you want to be happy for a lifetime, help people. Think about that. I will close with the words of another beloved Delawarean, who used to say this to us and to me: If you want to be happy for an hour, take a nap. If you want to be happy for a week, take a vacation. If you want to be happy for a lifetime, help people. That is exactly what John DiEleuterio did his whole life. He helped people. I said earlier he was a happy warrior. Boy, he was, and we are going to miss him. Thank you for allowing me to add these comments. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, our Presiding Officer, if I am not mistaken, is a veteran himself--I want to say Army. Navy salutes Army. Different uniform, same team. I want to express my thanks to Senator Whitehouse for his comments relating to the Vietnam war. I stand before you as the last Vietnam veteran serving in the U.S. Senate, with the death of John McCain. I had the privilege of leading a bipartisan congressional delegation--three Democrats, three Republicans--back to Southeast Asia to try to find out what happened to our MIAs in 1991--Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos. One of the people with me in that delegation--amazing meetings we had with the brandnew leader of Vietnam, a Gorbachev-like character with whom we met during that visit. We carried with us to Southeast Asia on that trip a roadmap to normalize relations between the United States and Vietnam. Vietnam by that time was not North Vietnam, South Vietnam. Out of our meetings, we started something that went really well and led to normalizing relations. John McCain worked it here and John Kerry worked it here in the Senate. A bipartisan codel worked it in the House. One of the members in the codel was a former POW--was Air Force, shot down over Vietnam, POW for 5 or 6 years--named Pete Peterson. He was a longtime friend and still is my friend. He became the first U.S. Ambassador to a united Vietnam all those years ago. I know every time I run down to the Lincoln Memorial and I run back to the Capitol, I run past the Vietnam Memorial with the names of 58,000 brothers and sisters with whom I served all those years ago. So I want to express my thanks to Senator Whitehouse for raising up our colleagues, my brothers and sisters, as he just did. Clean Economy Act of 2020 Mr. President, I rise today with a message to our colleagues and to this world we inhabit: Climate change has become the greatest threat to our planet. There are others, but this is the greatest. This image right next to me was designed by climate scientist Ed Hawkins. From left to right, these are called warming stripes. In fact, this work of art is called ``Warming Stripes.'' It visualizes our planet's annual average temperature from 1850 over here to 2018 over there, going from deep blue to a brilliant orange and red. What this design fails to capture is just how menacing these rising temperatures have been and will continue to be for our planet and what this means for all of us who inhabit this planet today and will in the years to come. Our rising seas are already at the highest levels ever recorded. Our Nation's leading scientists have warned us that if we fail to start seriously reducing carbon emissions now, by the end of this century, we may well witness sea levels rise another 6 feet. I am 6 feet tall. Another 6 feet of sea level rise puts a large part of the United States and, frankly, other nations around the world underwater--underwater. The east coast and west coast won't look like they do today. For America alone, that would result in an estimated $3.6 trillion-- that is trillion with a ``t''--$3.6 trillion in cumulative damages to our country's coastal properties--think gulf coast, west coast, east coast, Great Lakes--$3.6 trillion in cumulative damage to our country's costal properties and infrastructure over the next 70 years. I might add that the Flood Insurance Program for our country is, the last time I checked, billions of dollars and maybe tens of billions of dollars underwater, in the red, already. While global temperatures warm, ice caps melt, and sea levels rise, we also know that the extreme weather we are witnessing throughout the world is not going to get better. It is going to get worse. The devastating hurricanes and typhoons, torrential rains and catastrophic floods, the heat waves and drought-fueled wildfires will only become more dangerous and more disruptive to our economy and to our lives. Let's take a look at one of the places where that happened just last month. This is a real picture from Australia. It is not a movie; it is a real picture. This is Australia. The world watched in horror last month as bushfires scorched millions of acres of forest in Australia--an area the size of my native State of West Virginia. At least 25 people died in those bushfires, including 3 American firefighters. Experts initially estimated that 500 million animals died in those bushfires. More recently, that was doubled to 1 billion animals--1 billion, in 1 country. Meanwhile, our country has been no stranger to tragedy and devastation caused by wildfires--including fueled by drought and heat-- like those that continue to plague the State of California. Scientists tell us that by 2050, we could face wildfire seasons that burn up to six times more forest area each year than today. I will say that again--wildfire seasons that burn up to six times more forest area each year than today. If we do nothing to address carbon emissions, the extreme weather events we are experiencing now will pale in comparison to the devastation that lies ahead. Last year, some 13 agencies across the Trump administration released a report that predicted that the United States could see climate- related losses of up to half a trillion dollars by the end of this century--half a trillion dollars. If we do nothing, the effects from climate change could slash up to 10 percent of our gross domestic product by the next century--more than double the losses of the great recession. How much is 10 percent of our GDP? More than double the losses of the great recession. This is something provided to us I think by the United Nations and called U.N. Warning. In order to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change, the world's leading scientists have warned us that we need to limit global warming to no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius--a 1.5-degree increase in Celsius, period. To do that, humanity would need to collectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by the middle of this century. Right now, we are not on track to meet that goal. I wish we were. We are dangerously close to losing our only shot. As the latest United Nations annual ``Emissions Gap Report'' made clear, collective global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are falling short, and time is running out. If we want to avoid the most catastrophic impact of climate change, we need to step up. We need to step up our game. This is a chart that indicates the countries that are not in the Paris accord. It looks like--I am looking at all these countries here, and I see only one country, ours, that is in red. Ours is the only country today that is not in the Paris Agreement. The climate crisis is one that can be solved only by everyone who shares in the plan working together as one. That is why nearly 200 nations came together in common cause to implement the Paris Agreement and why they are working together to find solutions to the climate crisis, but instead of leading the world in this fight, America stands alone. We know the EPA already has the authority and tools to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but under the Trump administration, EPA's policies have been used to increase harmful emissions, not decrease them. President Trump is putting America in the slow lane while much of the rest of the world races toward a global clean economy. President Trump claims Americans must choose between a healthy economy on one side and a healthier planet on the other side. In the words of a good friend of mine, that is malarkey--or in the words of President Trump, that is--fill in the blank. Come up with whatever you do. Choosing between environmental progress and economic growth is a false choice. On the one hand, we do face a very real choice, one that was made clear in the U.N. report released this past December. We either act now on climate change or we ``face the consequences of a planet [that has been] radically altered by climate change.'' I say let's choose to save our one and only planet, planet Earth, and I say it is time for the United States to once again lead the world in this fight. The next chart we are going to take a look at is something called the Clean Economy Act, which we introduced yesterday with over 30 cosponsors. I introduced with my colleagues--33 of them, actually-- legislation that will put the United States on a path to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The Clean Economy Act heeds the call for bold climate action while fostering economic growth that is fair for everyone. The Clean Economy Act empowers the EPA to use the authorities and tools already at its disposal to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than midcentury, 2050. This is the quickest way we can jump-start governmentwide climate action, by empowering agencies to use the tools they already have. The Clean Economy Act builds upon successful climate programs in States, cities, and private companies, and ensures that economywide climate change actions continue regardless of who sits in the Oval Office. Our legislation sets important guardrails to make sure all Americans reap the benefits as we move our country toward net zero emissions. Here are just three examples of those protections. The Clean Economy Act minimizes costs. First, EPA must maximize greenhouse gas reductions while minimizing costs to consumers and providing regulatory flexibility to industry. Our next floorchart shows that the bill prioritizes environmental justice. Under our legislation, the EPA must consider and protect frontline communities. We know climate change disproportionately affects impoverished and disadvantaged communities. More often than not, these communities are downwind from dangerous pollution, located near industrial facilities or factories, or located in areas that are already experiencing flooding and extreme weather fueled by climate change. This legislation will prioritize input from and investment in those communities. Our next chart on the Clean Economy Act prioritizes American workers. The Clean Economy Act focuses on American competitiveness and on the American worker. Our legislation compels EPA to use American workers, domestic materials, and strong labor standards to get the job done-- relying on our country's talents to get to net zero emissions no later than 2050--no later than 2050. The Clean Economy Act also requires EPA to work with other Federal agencies on programs to protect and uplift communities and workers displaced or dislocated by our transition to a cleaner economy, such as in places like West Virginia where my sister and I were born. This legislation will not come at the expense of jobs or economic growth. Moving toward a clean economy will drive innovation and create millions of new jobs here at home. The Clean Economy Act is about realizing our true economic potential, potential that under this administration, sadly, has gone untapped. The Clean Economy Act hits what we call the sweet spot between organized labor, business community, and environmental group support. I just want to thank the many organizations that helped us in crafting our bill, the Clean Economy Act, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Moms Clean Air Force, the League of Conservation Voters, NRDC, Environment America, the BlueGreen Alliance, and the Utility Workers. I also want to thank the organizations that joined me yesterday in unveiling this legislation, including the United Steelworkers, Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and CERES. To say the least, it is disappointing that President Trump has decided to abandon the tremendous economic opportunity to create millions of clean energy jobs. There are already 3 million. Sadly, for the folks in West Virginia and Wyoming and other places, they lost a lot of coal mining jobs. The country is down to about 65,000 coal mining jobs, but folks who can be trained to mine coal can be trained to create windmill farms off of our coast. Folks who have the skills to mine coal have the ability to create corridors of fueling stations for hydrogen and natural gas and to create charging stations for electric- powered vehicles in the heavily traveled corridors across our country. Part of what we tried to do in this legislation is to make sure that we looked out for those workers and to help make sure they have a place to go and ways to support themselves and their families while at the same time having clean air to breathe where they call home. I think it is shameful that our President has forsaken our country's leadership in this fight for our one and only planet for the sake of misplaced political gain. That abdication of leadership will be a dark, indelible stain on his legacy, but while President Trump may not be up for the climate challenge, our colleagues and I are here to say to the world that the majority of Americans are ready for that challenge. We have faith in American innovation. We have faith in American workers to take on this climate fight and win. The Clean Economy Act will put the United States on a path to once again lead the world in the fight against climate change while lifting up America and American workers. This bill corrects our President's failure to lead on this issue and directs the EPA and other agencies to move swiftly to address this serious problem for the good of our planet and for the strengthening of our economy and creation of even more new jobs. Famed economist John Kenneth Galbraith once said these words: All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership. That is worth repeating. All of the great leaders we have had share one common characteristic, and that is the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership. I am Tom Carper, and I approve that message. The Clean Economy Act is our message to the rest of the world about climate leadership. The United States is preparing to once again lead the fight against this climate crisis. America, let's roll. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I am sorry. Will the Senator from New Mexico please yield?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Gary Jonesi and Kristin Butler, two legislative fellows on my staff, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the 116th Congress.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, 233 years ago, our Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia, just a few miles north of us in Delaware. Eleven years earlier, we had declared our independence from the British Crown, the most powerful empire in the world. Despite long odds, David overcame Goliath, and we won our independence, but would the government of this new Nation endure? When the Founders gathered in Philadelphia that summer of 1787, they began debating a new form of government. At times, the differences between our Founders--Northern States, Southern States, small States, and large States--seemed irreconcilable. However, a great compromise was eventually reached, and an intricate system of checks and balances was written into a governing document, the Constitution of the United States. Nebraska Senator William Jennings Bryan once remarked: ``Destiny is not a matter of chance. It is a matter of choice.'' Our Constitution has endured longer than any other on Earth, in large part because we did not leave our destiny to chance. Today, our Constitution remains the longest lasting Constitution in the world. Our Founders, despite their many disagreements, made the crucial choice that this new Constitution would not lead to the creation of an all-powerful King. They came from places where they had done that, been there, and they didn't want to go through that again. Instead, the Constitution created three separate, coequal branches of government--an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch. This ingenious system would ensure that a future President with the impulses of a King would be restrained by the other two branches. The Constitution also provided another backstop against abuses from a future President who committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. That constitutional backstop is called impeachment. As we consider the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, I ask my colleagues to remember that while we are here today because of the conduct of one man, the Constitution that guides us through these choppy waters some 233 years later is the triumph and wisdom of many men. We are here because of patriots like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and many others who lived under the harsh rule of a King and fought for the freedom to govern themselves. Our Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power of impeachment, while the Senate has the sole power to conduct a trial in the event the House impeaches a sitting President. We are now at the end of the impeachment trial of Donald J. Trump. It is not the trial that many of us had hoped for. We had hoped for a fair trial. The American people deserve a fair trial. A fair trial has witnesses. A fair trial has evidence. I don't believe that history will be kind to those who have and continue to prevent the truth from coming to light during this trial. The American people deserve to know the truth, as does this jury, the Members of the United States Senate. President Lincoln once said: I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. Thomas Jefferson said something very similar to that. He said that if the people know the truth, they won't make a mistake. The same is true of the Senate. If given the truth, we, too, can be depended upon to meet this crisis and do the right thing. I believe the truth will not only set us free but keep us free. We now have an obligation to consider the evidence presented by House managers and the President's defense team related to two Articles of Impeachment--one, abuse of power; two, obstruction of Congress. The House managers have presented a case that is a result of a 3- month-long investigation during which the House Intelligence Committee issued scores of subpoenas for documents and testimony. Donald Trump obstructed this process from the start. No President--not even President Richard Nixon during Watergate--has ever issued an order to direct a witness to refuse to cooperate in an impeachment inquiry. As a result of this unprecedented obstruction, the Trump administration did not provide a single document to the House of Representatives--not one. Fortunately, those 17 brave public servants, many of whom risked their careers, came forward to testify under oath, and here is what we learned from them. Donald Trump used the powers of his office to pressure the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election on his behalf and to smear his most feared political opponent, our former colleague, former Vice President Joe Biden. Donald Trump did this by illegally withholding funds appropriated by Congress to help an ally, Ukraine, in the midst of a hot war against Russia. Donald Trump did this by withholding a coveted White House meeting from the newly elected President of Ukraine, President Zelensky. This President illegally withheld the funds and a meeting until President Zelensky merely announced sham investigations involving Vice President Joe Biden and a debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. And when he got caught in the midst of this corrupt scheme, President Trump even called for other foreign nations to interfere on his behalf in the upcoming 2020 election. While I believe the evidence against Donald Trump is overwhelming, like any criminal defendant, he is entitled to a robust defense. Many of us listened carefully to the President's defense team over the course of his 2-week trial. Not once did the President's defense team rebut the facts of the case. Not once did they defend their client's character or call an eyewitness who could contradict the assertions made by witnesses who testified under oath. Not once did we hear the President's defense team say: Of course, the President wouldn't use the weight of the Federal Government to smear his political rival. What did we hear? Instead, we heard distractions, conspiracy theories, unfounded smears about Vice President Biden--our former colleague--and his family. Instead, we heard a farfetched legal theory that Presidents cannot be impeached for soliciting foreign interference in our elections if they believe their own reelection is in the national interest. I believe the House managers proved their case, and there now appears to be some bipartisan agreement that the President abused his power. Still, does this merit conviction and removal from office? Think about that. Our Constitution, agreed to in 1787, sought to establish ``a more perfect Union''--not a perfect union, ``a more perfect Union.'' The hard work toward a more perfect union did not end when Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution on December 7, 1787. In truth, it had only just begun. We went on as a nation to enact the Bill of Rights, abolish slavery, give women the right to vote, and much, much more. Throughout our history, each generation of Americans has sought to improve our government and our country because, after all, we are not perfect. In the words of Senator Bryan, we do not leave our destiny to chance. We make it a matter of choice. And we choose to make this a more perfect union, a reflection that the hard work begun in Philadelphia in 1787 is never--never--truly complete. Our Constitution has weathered a Civil War, World War I, World War II, Vietnam, Watergate, a Great Depression, a great recession, death of Presidents, assassination of Presidents, and, yes, impeachment of Presidents. Our Constitution will weather this storm too. A vote to acquit this President does not exonerate this President. A vote to acquit effectively legalizes the corruption of our elections-- the very foundation under our democratic process. A vote to acquit says to the President, and to all who follow, that you may use the powers of the office to solicit foreign interference in our elections--the very thing that the Founding Fathers feared. A vote to acquit is the realization of our Founders' worst fears: leaving a President with the impulses of a King, unchecked by the other coequal branches of government and undeterred by the prospect of impeachment. Donald Trump violated his oath. He broke the law. He attempted to cheat in the 2020 election, and when he got caught, he left little doubt that he will cheat again. That is not the conduct we expect of an American President. That is the conduct of someone who believes that he or she is above the law. Donald Trump is our President. He is not our King. So colleagues, if our destiny is to remain the most enduring democracy in the history of the world, we must not leave this to be a matter of chance. We must choose to preserve and protect our Constitution, and, to do so, we must convict Donald Trump on both Articles of Impeachment and remove him from office. As he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was asked this question we heard asked several times in the last 2 weeks on this floor. He was asked: ``What do we have, [what do we have here] a monarchy or a republic?'' Franklin answered famously: ``A republic, if you can keep it.'' Today I want to pose the same question to all of us, to our colleagues, in this Chamber: What do we have here, a monarchy or a Republic? I guess we can all answer for ourselves, but I want to leave you with my answer today. Here it is. We have a Republic, and I intend to keep it. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. Chief Justice, on behalf of our colleagues Senators Booker, Cardin, Kaine, Markey, Menendez, Merkley, Murphy, and Shaheen, I send a question to the desk for the House managers.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, before the senior Democrat, the ranking member of the Finance Committee, leaves the floor and before the Senator, my colleague from Ohio, leaves the floor, I want to thank them both. We would not be here on this day without them and without their leadership--both of them. When Sherrod Brown says that he has never met a trade agreement he wanted to even think about supporting--thank you for making this one that virtually all of us can support. My highest regards. United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement Madam President, I have a speech here that starts off with ``Mr. President'' over and over again, but I am going to say ``Madam President.'' I rise today to discuss the new treaty to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement, affectionately known as NAFTA. Last week, those of us who serve on the Finance Committee had an opportunity to evaluate the new NAFTA. In fact, about a half dozen or so committees have been given different jurisdictions to do that, with respect to this trade agreement. As you know, trade deals are often dense agreements that have hundreds of provisions relating to any number of issues. Ultimately, trade agreements and trade legislation move through the Senate Finance Committee. We just heard from two of our senior members. As another senior member of that committee for many years now, I have considered many trade bills and looked at what impact those bills would have on American consumers, producers, manufacturers, farmers, and businesses--citizens. After all, our economy depends on making sure that other countries can sell to us and that we can sell to other countries, especially close allies like Canada to our north and Mexico to our south. Following years of uncertainty, thanks to the President's haphazard trade wars, I believe this agreement will provide a measure of certainty for those who help drive our economy. Provisions included in the new NAFTA will help in our State, on the Delmarva Peninsula, our poultry producers gain better access to Canadian markets. It is not just important to Delaware; it is important to Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and other places where they raise chickens. Further, the new trade deal increases market access for dairy farmers in Delaware, and those across the country, to sell their milk products--products like powdered milk--to Canada. The International Trade Commission estimates that this will allow for an additional $315 million in exports annually. That is a $315 million increase in exports just under the milk side, the dairy side, in sales to Canada every year. When we evaluate the new NAFTA as what it is--a trade deal--I believe that it makes significant improvements on past trade agreements, including the original NAFTA. New NAFTA adds stronger language to ensure that the obligations to all three counties under multilateral environmental agreements, including the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol, can be fully enforced. I will come back and talk more about that in a short while. Thanks primarily to Democrats, though, it is no longer the case that the failure of one NAFTA country to ratify an environmental agreement can be used to prevent the others from being held accountable for failing to honor their obligations. New NAFTA also includes new provisions that have never been included in trade agreements before. Environmental violations will now be treated as trade violations, so when the United States does bring cases under the new NAFTA's environmental obligations, those cases will be easier to win going forward. This agreement also includes significant new wins for coastal States, including binding provisions around overfishing, around conservation of marine species, and marine debris. When we talk about marine debris, just keep this in mind: There is, floating out in the oceans of the world, something called the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. It is largely plastics. It is twice the size of Texas--not twice the size of Delaware, not twice the size of Maryland; it is twice the size of Texas. In addition to the $88 million for environmental monitoring, cooperation and enforcement, the new NAFTA creates an enforcement mechanism that gives environmental stakeholders an expanded role in enforcement matters. This will go a long way toward ensuring that environmental violations can be investigated and remedied in a substantive and timely manner. My colleagues have heard me say before that I have a friend who, when you ask him how he is doing, he replies: Compared to what? Well, compared to all the previous trade agreements that this body has considered, new NAFTA and its implementing legislation have the strongest environmental enforcement provisions we have seen to date, period. That is good news, especially for a trade deal put forth under this administration. Does the new NAFTA include everything that my Democratic colleagues and I--and some Republican colleagues--would have liked to see with regard to environmental protection? No, it does not. This new NAFTA fails to recommit the United States, for example, to the Paris accord. It fails to ratify the Kigali amendment that I mentioned earlier to the Montreal protocol, which could bring the global community together to reduce the use of something called HFCs, hydrofluorocarbons, found in products like air conditioners and freezers, and prevent, by the use of those follow-on products to HFCs, up to a half-degree Celsius increase in global warming by the end of this century, just for doing this one thing--one thing. Like so many of the Trump administration's proposals, the new NAFTA fails to even mention the words ``climate change.'' This trade agreement does add important tools and resources that were primarily negotiated by Democrats to strengthen the deal, hold the administration accountable to enforce NAFTA countries' obligations, and help ensure that those who break the rules are actually held accountable. As the senior top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate, I am especially aware of the extreme and destructive environmental policies put forth by the current administration. Week after week, I have helped to lead the fight against some reckless rollbacks, too many unbelievably unqualified candidates, and their relentless attempts to chip away at our Nation's bedrock environmental protections. We know what to expect from this administration when it comes to environmental policies. As a result, I know that the environmental provisions in new NAFTA-- thanks to the hard work from Democrats in both the House and the Senate, and some Republicans too--are far stronger than where we started. It is certainly not perfect, and we can, and we must, do more going forward. But it is better than we have ever done before, and that must be recognized. I want to pause for a moment to thank Ambassador Robert Lighthizer and his staff--the Trade Ambassador, Trade Rep's office--for their hard work and their willingness to engage with my colleagues and with me. It has been an extraordinary outreach, great responsiveness. I just want to say thank you to the Ambassador and to his team. It reminds me of what we had with Michael Froman when he was the Trade Rep in the last administration. Let me end it with this, if I could: While it is good news that we were able to reach an agreement on the new NAFTA, I want to caution my colleagues that the uncertainty caused by President Trump's haphazard approach to trade is far from over. President Trump's multifront trade war with our allies and our trading partners is approaching 2 years now. That is 2 years of American farmers, American manufacturers, retailers, and small businesses experiencing increased costs from President Trump's tariffs while simultaneously being locked out of overseas markets due to retaliatory tariffs. That is 2 years of uncertainty and disruption for American business that have had to put investments and hiring decisions on hold and 2 years of uncertainty for the American workers who are not sure if their jobs will continue to exist as trade wars drag on. Where has that gotten us? A limited trade agreement with Japan, which may be better than nothing, but it is largely an attempt to cover up some of the negative effects that withdrawal from the transpacific trade partnership, TPP, has had on our economy and our global competitors. For those who don't remember, TPP, Trans-Pacific Partnership, as you will recall, negotiated in the last administration, was a 12-nation trading bloc, negotiated primarily by the U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman, and his staff. That included 40 percent of the world's economy in one trading bloc, 12 nations. Guess who led it: We did. Guess who was excluded: China, for the bad behavior they sometimes follow. On the outside, they were looking in. And somehow we walked away from that. What we have come up with in its place is something that is, in my view, not nearly as bold and, unfortunately, not the path we have taken. I am still reviewing the text of the ``phase one''--I will put that in quotes--China trade deal that was signed, I think, today. But from what I have seen, the agreement falls far short of the structural reforms to China's planned economy that President Trump has ``trumpeted'' for some time. As best as I can tell, the structural reforms in China's economy did not make the final cut. As we enter this new year and a new decade, I sincerely hope our President will rethink what many believe are senseless approaches to trade and return to a multilateral approach--much as we had on the Trans-Pacific Partnership--where the United States works with our allies and trading partners to constructively write the global rules of trade. With that, I see one of my colleagues, also from Ohio, rising to address a welcoming audience. I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, before Senator Blackburn arrived on the floor, I talked about Iran, as many of us have. I mentioned the opposition that some folks in Iran had--that the Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force had--to actually entering into negotiations with the United States and five other nations to get the Iran deal, the JCPOA. As far as I can tell, nobody was a stronger opponent to Iran's negotiating with us and five other nations--nobody, as best I can tell, was a stronger opponent for Iran's doing that, for sitting down and trying to work things out--than Soleimani. We are not going to miss that guy, but he was one of the strongest opponents who had actually taken what, I think, was a reasonable course. Sadly, this administration walked away from it. I thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I have come to the floor today to talk for a while about the nomination of Paul Ray to serve as Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I will do that, but first I want to take a few minutes to set the record straight on what we just heard. Tom Friedman, who writes for the New York Times, is a famous author, lecturer, and a brilliant guy. Among the things he has mentioned in his writings over the last 3 years is something called the Trump doctrine. The Trump doctrine goes something like this: Barack built it. I, Trump, broke it. You fix it. There are any number of examples where that has happened: Paris accords on reducing emissions of carbon dioxide on our planet and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, where the United States would lead 11 other nations in a trade agreement around the world. Those 12 nations would be responsible for 40 percent of the world's trade. Under that agreement negotiated in the last administration, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we would lead that 12-nation group in 40 percent of the world's trade. China was on the outside looking in. This administration walked away from that. The greatest source of carbon emissions in our planet and the greatest threat to the future of the planet for these young pages--whom I am looking at now--is way, way too much carbon dioxide in our atmosphere. It is getting worse, not getting better. The greatest source of carbon emissions on our planet are emissions from our cars, trucks, and vans. The last administration negotiated a 50-State deal, which would have reduced emissions from mobile sources dramatically in the years to come. This administration broke away from it. They walked away from it. The last administration negotiated a rule regulation to dramatically reduce emissions from the second greatest source of carbon emissions in this country and from our utilities: coal-fired utilities, primarily. If you add together the reduction in carbon dioxide emissions going forward from our mobile sources negotiated by the last administration and negotiated in a regulation called the Clean Power Plan, they would provide almost half of the emission reductions by 2050 that we need-- almost half. This administration walked away from both. The last administration argued that rather than always be threatening war with Iran and doing these proxy wars with Iran, maybe what we should focus on is the main thing. A friend used to advise me. He said: Tom, the main thing is keep the main thing the main thing. The reason why we negotiated the JCPOA deal with Iran was to deter Iran from developing and having nuclear weapons that could create a nuclear arms race in the Middle East and put them and, I think, the rest of our planet, literally, at risk. Under the agreement negotiated with Iran and six other nations--including the United States, the Brits, the French, the Germans, the Russians, the Chinese--under the agreement, the Iranians had to agree to stand down, to slow down much of their nuclear enrichment that could actually lead to nuclear weapons. They had to agree to intrusive inspections by the IAEA, the international watchdog for atomic energy. In return for their willingness to do those things, we would reduce the very harsh sanctions that had been put in place by the last administration--very harsh economic sanctions. The Iranians did what they agreed to do. They stood down their development. They opened up their facilities to intrusive inspections by the IAEA for the last 4 years. There were almost 20 different rounds of inspections, each of which came to the same conclusion: Iran, whether we like it or not, whether we like their leaders or not, kept their word. Some of us remember what Ronald Reagan used to talk about. He used to say that in terms of doing nuclear deals with the Russians-- the Soviets--he used to say: ``Trust but verify.'' Well, what we did with the Iran deal was mistrust or distrust. We didn't trust them, but we would verify that they were keeping their word. Whether we like it or not, surprisingly, they did, until this administration came along and walked away from that agreement, which was working. It imposed even harsher sanctions on Iran and led us to, really, where we are today. Again, Tom Friedman, who gave us the Trump doctrine: Barack built it. I, Trump broke it. You fix it. This is just another example of that happening. We shouldn't be surprised by the events of the past week. It didn't have to be that way. It didn't have to be that way. I think in the country of Iran, half of the people are under the age of 25. They were never born when the original Ayatollah was in charge, and they had the Iranian revolution. The younger people there would like a better relationship with us. They have elections there, too, where people can actually show up and vote--men and women--vote for municipal elections, for mayors, city councils, and so forth, for Parliament--their Congress is called the Parliament--for their President. I think the last time they voted was 3 years ago. You know which forces gained votes? They don't have Democrats or Republicans over there. They have hard-liners, and they have moderates. The moderates gained election victories in mayoral elections across the country and city council elections across the country. The moderates picked up a lot of votes in the Parliament. The hard-liners lost votes. The actions of this administration over the last 3 years have pushed Iranian voters, including a lot of young people, away from supporting the moderates in their Nation and pushed them into the arms of the radical extremists, the hard-liners. It didn't have to be that way. It didn't have to be that way. I don't know how we put this mess back together again, but we need to. I am not sure. I don't have a lot of confidence that this administration is going to be able to do that, given their track record over the last 3 years--at least on this issue.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I want to share with the Senate my reasons for opposing the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to serve as the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Let me begin by saying that I am disappointed to find myself in this position. When I had the privilege of serving as Governor of Delaware, I was able to assemble my own leadership team, so I appreciate how important it is that people in executive positions, including Presidents, have that same ability. However, in article II of the Constitution, our Founders set up a system in which the President would nominate individuals to the top posts in our government and Senators would provide ``advice and consent'' on those nominees. In order for the Senate to fulfill that constitutional role, those nominated individuals must cooperate with the confirmation process. And, unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has not provided information requested by the Democrats during the nomination process. Despite my repeated requests for the nominee to be more forthcoming-- requests made twice in writing and twice in person. during her nomination process--Ms. Skipwith has refused. Instead, she has given me the impression that she does not take this confirmation process seriously. Her lack of candor has elevated questions that already existed about her qualifications, her commitment to environmental conservation and whether she can ethically lead the Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, I cannot support this nomination. Ms. Skipwith first joined the Trump administration in April 2017. when she was appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Fish and Wildlife and Parks, a non-Senate-confirmed political appointment at the Department of the Interior. During her tenure there, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed and finalized controversial regulations that drastically altered implementation of the Endangered Species Act. The Service has also issued a legal opinion that changes the way the Department of the Interior enforces the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Former senior Interior officials from every administration since the early 1970s, both Republican and Democrat, have strongly opposed this Migratory Bird Treaty Act legal opinion. At her confirmation hearing, Ms. Skipwith vehemently defended it. Prior to her controversial tenure at the Interior Department, Ms. Skipwith had no previous work experience related to conservation or wildlife management--none. By contrast, the 16 individuals who previously served as Fish and Wildlife Service Directors for both Republican and Democratic Presidents had an estimated average of 12 years of experience at the Fish and Wildlife Service before taking on the Director role. They also have an estimated average of more than 22 years of professional experience in fields related to wildlife or fisheries management. Ms. Skipwith has also not seemed to make up for her lack of previous experience while on the job. At her confirmation hearing, when asked to name the conservation scientist who had most influenced her career and her approach to wildlife and fisheries management, Ms. Skipwith struggled to name any conservation scientist. Ultimately, she named a former Monsanto vice president with whom she used to work, but she misremembered his name. This was not an insignificant misstep. To me, it was revealing. Ms. Skipwith's response to my simple question represented a clear lack of familiarity with the basics of wildlife management, a troubling quality for a Fish and Wildlife Director nominee. By contrast, Ms. Skipwith does have significant experience in the agribusiness industry. Before joining the Trump administration, she worked for Monsanto, one of the world's largest agrochemical firms. Monsanto regularly has business interests before the Interior Department. She also worked for Alltech, a Kentucky-based agricultural products company. She also co-founded AVC Global, an agribusiness-technology start up, and was employed by Gage International, a Washington, DC, based lobbying firm founded by her fiance. That is why even before her confirmation hearing, I asked Ms. Skipwith some basic questions about how these companies operate and whether Ms. Skipwith has recused herself from working on those issues. Unfortunately, Ms. Skipwith has refused to answer those questions. She has repeatedly refused to provide her calendars with the appointments she has had as a Department of the Interior official. This information could be made available to any member of the public under the Freedom of Information Act, but she has refused to provide it to me for months within the confirmation process. This information is important because Ms. Skipwith's former employer, Gage International, has represented water utilities that have lobbied Congress to weaken Western water policy and the Endangered Species Act. Unanswered questions also remain about Ms. Skipwith's role in the development of a controversial repeal of an existing ban on using pesticides that have been shown to harm birds and bees in national wildlife refuges. And one of the largest producers of these pesticides is Monsanto, another one of Ms. Skipwith's former employers. Yet when Senator Gillibrand asked Ms. Skipwith about her role in the ban's repeal, Ms. Skipwith defended the reversal but denied any role in the decision. This answer does not appear to be consistent with some of the email records that have been obtained under Freedom of Information Act, which show that she expressed interest in the matter and received materials on the issue from career staff. If Ms. Skipwith was indeed involved with the decision to reverse the pesticides ban, it would constitute a violation of the ethics pledge she signed when she joined the Department. An examination of Ms. Skipwith's calendar entries could clear up these outstanding questions, but her lack of cooperation makes that impossible. This lack of being forthcoming is troubling, not only because it undermines the Senate's advice and consent role for Presidential nominees, but it also because it demonstrates the nominee's may not be cooperative when it comes to congressional oversight. I have found that, when a nominee is unwilling to provide information as part of their confirmation process, they almost always prove to be even more defiant to congressional oversight requests after they are confirmed. I urge my colleagues. especially my Republican colleagues, to take this matter seriously. In fact, I would urge my Republican colleagues to remember these words spoken by my friend, former Congressman Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. In June 2012, during the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee contempt proceedings against Attorney General Holder, then Congressman Gowdy said: ``The notion that you can withhold information and documents from Congress no matter whether you are the party in power or not in power is wrong. Respect for the rule of law must mean something, irrespective of the vicissitudes of political cycles.'' Eventually, whether it is in 1 year or in 4 years or in 8, we will eventually have another Democratic administration. And when that time comes, Republicans in Congress will want officials in that Democratic administration to answer questions and respond to congressional oversight requests. I fear that my Senate colleagues will find the process completely broken by then if we continue undermining our duty as Senators to both provide advice and consent on Presidential nomination and to conduct congressional oversight. This clear defiance of our sworn constitutional duty and congressional oversight role diminishes the Senate, weakens our intricate system of checks and balances, and undermines the trust of the American people. Beyond her lack of qualifications and her questionable role in some of this administration's major conservation policies, there are too many troubling concerns and questions about this nominee that remain unaddressed or unanswered. Therefore, I will be opposing this nomination, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and my friend for his leadership, and I thank him for yielding the floor to me. I have been here 19 years. It is pretty hard to believe. Some of my detractors say it seems longer. It has gone by pretty fast. In the past, I have been privileged to have been a naval flight officer for many years and retired as a Navy captain. I am the last Vietnam veteran to serve in the U.S. Senate today. I have been privileged to serve as treasurer, Congressman, Governor, and Senator for my State. I loved being Governor. I love being a Senator. I am really lucky. There are 1,900 people in the history of our country who have had the privilege of serving here, and we get to be among them. Before I came here, I was Governor for 8 years and got to be chairman of the National Governors Association as well. It was a huge honor to work with Governors. There are a bunch of former Governors here whom I get to work with today. I like that a lot. During the 8 years I was Governor, we had 8 years of balanced budgets. In 7 out of those 8 years, we actually cut taxes, but we always balanced our budget. We paid down some debt, and we earned an AAA credit rating for the first time in State history. More jobs were created in those 8 years--in the 8-year period in the history of the State of Delaware. I don't say that to be boastful. I didn't create one of them. As Governor, I tried to provide some leadership and to work with stakeholders in our State and in our government and outside of government--people from all walks of life and businesses large and small. I tried to create a nurturing environment for job creation and job preservation. That is what we tried to do, and we were pretty good at it. We were pretty good at it. We are still pretty good at it in Delaware. That nurturing environment is made up of a lot of different things. Among the elements are our workforce, people who are educated, trained, and have the experience to work to contribute in the workplace, whether it is agriculture, tourism, financial services, manufacturing, technology, you name it. Right now, we have a big challenge in filling all of these holes in jobs around the country. We just got a jobs report last Friday that shows how the job market was going in the country in the month of November. One of the things we learned in the jobs report was that maybe about 156 million or 157 million people went to work in November every day, but there are 5 million or 6 million jobs where nobody showed up. Nobody showed up because they didn't have the skills, the education, or the training, or they didn't live in the right part of the country, they didn't want to do that kind of job, or maybe they couldn't pass a drug test. A lot of jobs are going wanting in this country. That has to be a concern as we try to provide a nurturing environment, work on the workforce side of preparing them for success, and help to bolster the growth of our economy going forward. Among the other pieces of that nurturing environment, besides the workforce, are access to foreign markets and the investment by the Federal Government and State governments, too, in the private sector to put investment into research and development that can be commercialized in order to create the successful businesses going forward in the future. Transportation is important, not just roads, highways, and bridges, but rail transportation, shipping, air. All of that is important. Access to the internet--there are a lot of places in the country that don't have access to the internet. We think they are just in rural areas, but a lot of them are in cities--in cities that have tough neighborhoods and are struggling. Last night I was privileged to have dinner with the cabinet secretary for the State of Delaware, who has been working in a great partnership in our State, where the State provides money and we work with private sector partners to help bring broadband to virtually every rural part of our State. That is a great goal, and I think we are closing in on achieving that. That is another important element in the environment for successful businesses and for business growth. Other ingredients include public safety, and they include the protection of our intellectual property, cyber security, and the ability to make sure that for our products--whether they are goods and services, or goods or services, or both--we have the ability to sell those into markets around the world without impediment. Another one that is important is the Tax Code--a tax code that is fair, a tax code that fosters economic growth, a tax code that is not incredibly difficult for people to understand and comply with, and a tax code that doesn't leave us with a huge hole in our budget deficit. The folks at CBO tell us these days, if we look at spending as a percentage of GDP--Federal spending as a percentage of GDP--today, it is a little over 20 percent, maybe 20.5 percent. The percentage of revenues of GDP is about 16 percent. When you spend 20 percent of GDP and you raise about 60 percent of GDP revenue, that delta there is our deficit. The deficit for the last fiscal year was $850 billion. I haven't sat down and added this up. That is probably more than the first 200 years of our country, combined, and it is $850 billion in 1 year. The deficit for the current year is expected to be $1 trillion. It is an unimaginable number, except maybe in the case of a war, like World War II or maybe World War I. I serve on the Finance Committee with Senator Wyden, Senator Brown, who is on the floor now, and Senator Stabenow. We were faced with the opportunity to do smart things with respect to our Tax Code, to try to make it more fair, better able to foster economic growth, less complex, and, actually, to reduce deficits. As it turned out, without a single Democratic vote--in fact, we didn't have the opportunity to offer amendments as the measure moved through committee and on to the floor through the Senate, and we had no opportunity to offer amendments. I just sat in a hearing in the Finance Committee a few minutes ago, and they quoted Rob Wallace, from Wyoming, a senior official now in the Interior Department. Rob Wallace likes to say that the best solutions are the most lasting solutions, and they are bipartisan solutions. They are bipartisan solutions. We had the tax changes. They were massive changes in the Tax Code that were run through here without any bipartisan support. We were told at the time the tax bill was signed into law by President Trump that it would pay for itself, that it would not increase deficits--that it would actually pay for itself, it would lower taxes. It would pay for itself, and we would have more revenues. As it turns out, that is not true. It wasn't true this time, and, frankly, it has been asserted many times that if we can continue to cut taxes, revenues will just flow, and everything will be just hunky-dory. That is not true, unfortunately. Almost 2 years, to the day, have passed since the Republican tax bill was enacted. I think it is time to take a good look at some questions that my Democratic colleagues and I posed when we were debating this bill, to see how this law has fared. First of all, is it fair? A fair tax law would have ensured that working families in Delaware and across the country share in the benefits of tax reform. Unfortunately, the 2017 Republicans tax law fails the fairness test in spectacular fashion. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, by 2027, the top 1 percent of earners will receive 83 percent of this tax law's relief. Eighty-three percent is for the top 1 percent. By the same time, Americans earning less than $75,000 will actually see their taxes go up. How about that? When it became clear that the wealthiest Americans would get the lion's share of the benefits, this administration tried to play a game of smoke and mirrors with the American people by promising that their massive corporate tax giveaway would trickle down to working families. President Trump told us that the average household would see their income increase by $4,000 to $9,000 per year. Sadly, it is clear that has not happened. In fact, according to a report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, ordinary workers saw very little wage growth in 2018. What about the bonuses that workers were promised? That same Congressional Research Service report shows that the bonuses attributed by companies to the tax law--when divided among all American workers-- comes out to $28 per person. It is not exactly the rewards that were promised. The second question is, how does this tax law encourage economic growth? It was passed at a time when we were about 8 years into the longest running economic expansion in the history of the country when this was enacted. It came as the economy was growing consistently for almost a decade. Two years ago, a survey of top economists from across the political spectrum found that only 1 out of the 43 experts surveyed believed this type of tax reform would boost economic growth. It turns out that the other 42 were right. Don't take my word for it. Let's look at some facts. The CRS report I mentioned earlier found that in 2018, GDP grew at 2.9 percent, the same as what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted before the tax law was factored in. Business investment did increase in 2019, but CRS found that the investment patterns did not align with the incentives of the 2017 tax law, raising questions about how much longer term, sustainable growth will result from the law. For example, CRS found that the tax law made investing in R&D comparably more expensive than investing in other areas, such as equipment and structures. But R&D investment actually increased faster than investment in equipment and structures in 2018. In fact, now that the sugar high of the corporate tax cuts has passed, business investment has started to slow in 2019 to the point where the Federal Reserve has cited what they call continued softness in business and investment as a key reason for the Fed's most recent interest rate cut. Instead of sustained investments, corporations have used their savings from the tax law for record-setting stock buybacks that have an outsized benefit for wealthy shareholders and senior executives. Job growth follows the same pattern. Despite President Trump's constant self-congratulations over jobs numbers, job growth has averaged about 180,000 per month so far in 2019, down from the sugar- high average of 223,000 per month in 2018. In fact, average job growth in 2019 is more comparable to job growth in 2016, where it was about 193,000 a month. In 2017, it was about 179,000 per month, in the 2 years leading up to the tax law's enactment. The third question: Did it simplify the Tax Code? One goal of tax reform was supposed to be simplifying the Tax Code, to reduce the unpredictability and uncertainty, but the 2017 Republican tax law fails on this question too. In 2017, Republicans said that after tax reform, Americans would be able to file their taxes on a postcard. What we ended up with last year is a mighty big postcard--one that included six new schedules, and, as then-National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson predicted, caused additional complexity and hassle for taxpayers, increased the risk of errors, and resulted in higher tax preparation bills for most American families. In fact, the word ``postcard'' got to be so unwieldy that the IRS has now redesigned the form to look more like the one Americans filled out pre- tax law. We also failed to get greater certainty from the 2017 tax law. I have heard from Delaware families and businesses alike that they are concerned about the impact of the tax law's mistakes and unintended consequences--an unsurprising development since our colleagues rushed to pass the law in the dead of night without any public hearings and with changes scribbled in the margins. What is more, the law created a new fiscal cliff at the end of 2025, which makes tax policy unpredictable for families and businesses. That brings me to my fourth and final question: Has it been fiscally responsible? Even though the law's individual provisions--including the increase in child tax credit increase in the standard deduction--expire at the end 2025, this law blows a $1.5 trillion hole in our national debt. And it will be far costlier than that as the deficits grow in the years and decades ahead. Two years ago, our Republican friends in Congress and the administration repeatedly claimed their tax law would pay for itself. As I said earlier, it just hasn't happened. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, U.S. tax revenue in 2018 was $275 billion lower than if the tax law had not been enacted and lower than otherwise would have happened. This sharp drop in corporate income tax revenue has been particularly dramatic. CBO data shows that corporations paid $135 billion less in 2018 than they would have if the law had not gone into effect--a decline of nearly 40 percent. As a result, U.S. revenue as a percentage of GDP in 2018 was 16.4 percent, a lot lower than the 19 percent during the 4 years of balanced budgets in the Clinton administration, when we had a Republican majority in the House and Senate. The other side of this equation is, again, that the spending was 20.5 percent. That delta between those two numbers explains the deficit. Let me close with this. I would like to quote a fellow from Wyoming, who was recently before the Energy and Public Works Committee. He has been nominated to be the head of the part of the Interior Department that includes national parks and fisheries and wildlife. He used to work for Malcolm Wallop here. He is a longtime friend of John Barrasso and I think others from Wyoming, Mike Enzi. He is a very impressive guy. I like him a lot. This is one of the things he said: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. That is what he said. He said: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. The tax law that was enacted 2 years ago was not a bipartisan solution. As it turns out, in retrospect, it has not been fair, it has not fostered the kind of economic growth long term that we expected or hoped or told it would bring, and it has not made the Tax Code all that much simpler. And, finally, it has just dramatically inflated the budget deficit. That is not sustainable. Other than that, it turned out just great. I yield the floor to some others who have been waiting, including Senator Brown and Senator Stabenow.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I take no joy today in rising to urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on the cloture of the nomination of Aurelia Skipwith to serve as Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. To my disappointment and dismay, Ms. Skipwith has not provided information pertaining to her activities at the Interior Department that was requested by Senate Democrats during her nomination process. Despite my repeated requests for this information since August-- requests made twice in writing and twice in person during her nomination process--Ms. Skipwith has refused to produce information that is routinely provided by other nominees. She even suggested--get this--that I file a Freedom of Information Act request for the basic information I seek. I worry, once confirmed, Ms. Skipwith's forthrightness will only worsen, which will severely impair our ability to conduct meaningful oversight over the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ms. Skipwith's lack of candor has elevated questions that already existed about her qualifications, her commitment to environmental conservation, and whether she can ethically lead the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I believe it is irresponsible to confirm a nominee given these serious outstanding issues. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no on cloture. I thank the Presiding Officer.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise this evening with a very important reminder for many Delawareans and for all Americans, but before I do that, I want to say that today is December 11, and 4 days ago was December 7. A lot of people think of December 7 as Pearl Harbor Day, and for many years of my life, I did as well. It is also Delaware Day. Senator Chris Coons, Lisa Blunt Rochester, and I are hosting a reception on Capitol Hill today, and we call it ``A Taste of Delaware.'' We are inviting folks to come and join us if they would like. The reason I mention Delaware Day is because that was actually the day Delaware became the first State to ratify the Constitution. For 1 whole week, we were the entire United States of America. We kind of opened things up and let the rest of the other 49 States in, and I think it has worked out pretty well most days since then. If you look at the preamble of the Constitution, it starts off with these words: ``We the people of these United States, in order to form a more perfect Union.'' That is what it says. It doesn't say ``to form a perfect Union; it says ``to form a more perfect Union.'' It goes on to talk about the public welfare and how we should be looking out for the good of all our citizens. The Constitution was ratified in a place called the Golden Fleece Tavern in Dover, DE, on December 7, 1787, after 3 days of deliberation by about 25 or so Delawareans. There is a fellow who used to be President of Delaware--now we call him Governor of Delaware--a fellow named Caesar Rodney, who apparently literally rode his horse from Dover, DE, a few years earlier, past very near to where the Golden Fleece Tavern stood for many years. He rode his horse past the Golden Fleece Tavern on his way to Philadelphia to cast the tie-breaking vote in favor of the Declaration of Independence. The words in the Declaration of Independence were largely written by Thomas Jefferson and include these words: ``life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.'' It is hard to have life, liberty, and much happiness without access to good healthcare or without good health. I mention these words because that goes back to the founding of our country, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself particularly, the preamble of the Constitution, which makes clear that we ought to be looking out for the welfare of our people. I stand before us today reminding us that if we don't have good health and if we don't have access to healthcare, it is pretty hard to be happy, at least for a lifetime. I say that as sort of a preface to what I want to say now, which is that not everybody who is eligible for healthcare who needs healthcare is covered. We have a lot of people who get their healthcare from employer-provided plans. We have 300 million people in all who get healthcare coverage in this country--half of them from employer- provided plans, about 25 percent from Medicaid, about 15 percent from Medicare--and there is about another 10 percent who in some cases don't have any coverage. About 20 million people have no coverage. A lot of people now get their coverage from exchanges. Every State has its own healthcare exchange or marketplace. A lot of people are getting their healthcare there. A bunch of people use qualified community health centers in States on the east coast, in the Midwest, and across America. Whether you have 10 cents or $10,000, you can get healthcare at these places, and that is good. But a lot of people who could sign up and get their healthcare in marketplaces in each State don't know about it. There is an opportunity to enroll in the marketplaces and get healthcare coverage by midnight on this coming Sunday, on December 15. I just want to spend a couple of minutes reminding people who don't have coverage to do that and tell them why it is a good deal for them and their families. There is some good news here. The good news is that all across our country, folks have 4 more days to sign up. There is also some more good news, and that is that after going up, up, up for years, the cost of premiums in the exchanges and marketplaces actually dropped this year. In most marketplaces, I think the average reduction is about 4 percent. And for the next year, in more than half a dozen States, premiums will be coming down by double digits. In Delaware, the cost of healthcare in our marketplace, starting with coverage beginning January 1, will be down by 19 percent. What has happened here is that after a number of years where healthcare insurers were dropping out of the business of offering coverage in the marketplaces, they are starting to offer coverage again. Twenty-three insurers offered coverage in States this year that hadn't been offering coverage. Beginning January 1, I think about 45 more will start providing coverage. That means we are going to have some competition for customers, for folks who need insurance, and that competition will help create what I call a virtuous cycle, helping to bring down costs even more. More choices means more competition. That is a good thing for our consumers and States across America. But wait, there is more. This year, three out of four customers can find a plan for less than--are you ready for this?--75 bucks a month. Think about that. Customers can find a plan in the marketplace on the exchange for less than 75 bucks a month. Some people might be wondering whether the Affordable Care Act marketplace is the right choice for them or their loved ones. That is a good question to ask. The marketplace provides quality, affordable healthcare coverage for Americans who don't receive affordable health insurance through their employer. For instance, last Friday, a couple of people I have been talking to in my State just in the last week or so about healthcare coverage--I was down at a place called Lewes, DE, which was first colonized by the Dutch 400 years ago. It was the first town and the first city, Lewes, DE--I met there a fellow who is a self-employed artist. His name is G.W. Thompson, and his life was forever changed by the Affordable Care Act when he was able to find affordable and comprehensive health insurance. For folks that are waiting to start a business and need healthcare insurance, I would encourage you to do this: Visit HealthCare.gov--I will say that again, HealthCare.gov--today. Find a plan that works for you. You have got plenty of choices. Earlier this year, I met a widower in Delaware named Marie. She lives with a preexisting condition. As it turns out, there are tens of millions of people in this country who live with a preexisting condition. For many, many years, they didn't have access to healthcare because they had a preexisting condition. That is not the case anymore. Folks who do have a preexisting condition, they can get access to healthcare thanks to the excellent staff at a place called Westside Family Healthcare. That is one of the federally qualified community health centers, and they have a great place in Delaware. Marie was able to go there and enroll in an ACA plan that covers her preexisting condition and helps to keep her happy. Let me just say to the folks across the country, if you are 1 of 133 million Americans living with a preexisting condition, I urge you to visit, again, HealthCare.gov, HealthCare.gov. Find a plan that works for you. If you are a young person who has just turned 26 and can no longer stay on your parents' health plan, visit HealthCare.gov today and find a plan that works for you. If you or your family have tried to enroll in Medicaid but did not qualify, visit HealthCare.gov today and find a plan that works for you. Don't forget, nearly 9 out of 10 customers are eligible for financial help, which could mean a big savings for you and your family, but to that line, I said this before--I am going to say it again--make the call. The deadline to enroll in affordable healthcare in one of the marketplaces in your State is this Sunday. It is Sunday at midnight. So you have got 4 days and, depending on which time zone you are living in, maybe close to 6 hours in order to sign up. Don't wait another day, though. Sign up today. Go to HealthCare.gov now through this Sunday, December 15, to shop for a plan that will give you and your family coverage through 2020. If you sign up, sign up before midnight this Sunday. You will have coverage beginning January 1 through December 31 of next year. I know there are a lot of things that always have to get done before the end of the year. This is one that I think is too important to miss. It is too important to miss. So one more time, visit HealthCare.gov to find healthcare coverage that works for you and your family's needs and your budget, regardless of what State you live in, if you have no coverage. Mr. President, I want to end this by saying, since the Affordable Care Act was enacted, we have seen some--not all--but some of our Republican friends here in this body and across the country do their dead-level best to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Those efforts have ramped up considerably under the current administration. The President and 18 Republican attorneys general have gone so far as to file a lawsuit that attempts to scrap the healthcare law in its entirety. That lawsuit is working its way through the courts now, but it is important for everyone to know, despite these efforts to sabotage our Nation's healthcare law, the Affordable Care Act is still the law of the land. If you want to sign up for coverage for the next year, you can still do that until midnight on Sunday. I don't think there is a reason not to sign up, and I would urge anybody who's out there listening, watching, if you don't have coverage, let's do it. Do it today, and you will be glad you did. The idea of life, liberty, and the pursuit to happiness will be a little bit closer to being realized for you. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Democrat, Republican, and Independent colleagues alike on the floor today. I understand there is an overflow that is going to be back on the floor tomorrow to say the truth and tell the truth about Johnny Isakson. One of my friends likes to say: ``Flattery won't hurt you if you don't inhale.'' Johnny, I know a lot of nice things have been said about you today, and more tomorrow, and probably for the rest of the year. So I would just say: Don't inhale too deeply, and you will be just fine. I just want to follow up on what several of our colleagues have said. A number of them talked about how kind Johnny is. He is one of those people who will say hello to the folks who are custodians, the people who may run the elevators, the folks who are the security police here, and he even says nice things to the pages. Can you imagine that? That is true. He is about as kind as anybody you would ever want to meet, and it is not just occasionally. It is like that all the time. He is also smart. I haven't heard anybody say he is smart. They may have. I may have missed it. I want to say, for the record, that he is one smart fellow--as my mother used to say, smart as a whip. He grasps complex issues, understands them, and is really good at explaining them so that even people like me can usually understand them. I first met Johnny when he was newly elected to the Senate, and we had just established something called orientation. We didn't have orientation for a number of years here. George Voinovich from Ohio, Lamar Alexander from Tennessee, and Mark Pryor from Arkansas, and I put together a 3-day deal. We called it orientation for new Senators and spouses, and I remember that Johnny, I think, was in the first class that came through. I had been Governor of Delaware for 8 years. I got here in the beginning of 2001. One of the Governors I served with was a Governor from Georgia named Zell Miller. Zell Miller was elected and served two 4-year terms. I think he served two 4-year terms. One of the people who ran against him was Johnny Isakson. When Senator-elect Johnny Isakson came through orientation right after he had been elected, I asked him if he knew Governor Zell Miller. I thought that they had a connection, and, sure enough, they did because they had run against each other in an earlier year. There is a saying that some of you have heard. That saying is something like this: Just because somebody is your opponent, doesn't mean they have to be your enemy. I don't think I have ever heard anybody say such nice things, kind things, and generous things about their opponent in an earlier election where he lost and Zell Miller won. That is proof that your opponent does not have to be your enemy. For us around here, this day and age, that is a lesson that we would do well to take to heart. One of the other things I want to say is that I want to share a story I was reminded of today by one of my staff members. My office is in the Hart Building, and I have been in the same office for, gosh, 19 years now. My staff doesn't want to leave. They want to stay there. They like it. As to what makes them happy, you know the old saying: Happy wife, happy life. Well, happy staff, happy life, too-- they want to stay in the office, and that is where we have stayed. Once, a number of years ago, when Johnny was relatively new in the Senate, he came to a meeting on the same floor, and he came to the wrong Senate office. He came to my office by mistake. He meant to go to the office next door where David Vitter was, a Senator from Louisiana. His office was next door to ours. He came into the entrance--the foyer, if you will--of our office and met a couple of young people at the front desk there. He came in and said that he was there to see the Senator. They were looking at their schedules, trying to figure out what was going on. They didn't know quite what to tell him. He was there to see the Senator, and we had a wonderful gal at the front desk who was a little bit shy. He very kindly engaged her in a conversation and asked her: Well, tell me about you. She offered some things, and when she stopped, he would just very gently pull out her story and make her feel special. There was another fellow at a desk a short distance away in that foyer, that entrance to our office. He was a young man named David, and he would say to Senator Isakson, ``Senator''--and Johnny would interrupt him and keep talking to this young gal on our staff. Johnny would say: I am not in a rush. Take your time. David just couldn't get in a word edgewise. This went on for several minutes, and, finally, the young man interrupted, and he said to Senator Isakson: Senator, I think you are in the wrong office. Who do you think you are here to see? He said: Well, David Vitter. His office was next door to ours at the time. He said: You are in Senator Tom Carper's office. Johnny, without missing a beat, said: Well, I will just meet with Tom. And he picked up his stuff, and he walked into my office. I am sure those young people hadn't seen anything quite like that. We welcomed him warmly. He could walk into any office, and he would be welcomed warmly, whether he had an appointment or not. Recently, I served with Johnny on the Finance Committee. The fellow standing behind him is Senator Portman. We served there together. Senator Boozman, who is sitting down next to Johnny right now--he and I serve on the Committee on Environment Public Works. In Environment and Public Works, we had a witness not long ago who was here for a confirmation hearing, a fellow named Rob Wallace. I know Senator Boozman would remember him. He had been nominated to be a very senior guy in the Department of Commerce. The job he was nominated for was to be in charge of National Parks and in charge of Fish and Wildlife. It was a big deal. In his testimony, he talked to us. He used to work for Senator Malcolm Wallop from Wyoming. He had a distinguished career. During his testimony, he said words I will never forget. He said: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Think about that. He said: Bipartisan solutions are lasting solutions. Johnny Isakson is as good at crafting bipartisan solutions as anybody I have had the privilege of working with here. Again, he is a great role model for us. I want to close with just a few words on leadership. In my experience, having been privileged to be in the Navy for many years--I served in some wars and in peace and had the chance to be Governor and Senator, Congressman, and treasurer of my State--I have seen a lot of leaders. I have seen great leaders. I have seen some lousy leaders. I expect that is true of all of us. I have probably learned more from the not-so-good leaders as I have learned from the superb leaders. In my experience, leaders are humble, not haughty. Leaders have the heart of a servant. They realize that our job is to serve, not be served. Leaders have the courage to stay out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. Leaders build bridges, not walls. They unite, not divide. Leaders surround themselves with the best team they can find, and when the team does well, the leader gives the credit to the team. When the team falls short, the leader takes the blame. Leaders don't build themselves up by tearing others down. In fact, it is just the opposite. Leaders are aspirational. There is a French philosopher named Camus, I think--Albert Camus. He would say: Leaders are purveyors of hope. They appeal to our better angels. Leaders are interested in doing what is right, not what is easy--not what is expedient, but what is right. Leaders embrace the golden rule: Treat other people the way they want to be treated. Leaders focus on excellence in everything they do. They essentially say: If it isn't perfect, let's just make it better. Finally, when the really great leaders know they are right, when they are sure they are right, they don't give up. They just don't give up. We need leadership here in this building as much as at any time I can remember. We need leadership in this Capital City of ours, and we need leadership in all kinds of roles across our country. I just want to say about the leadership qualities I just described that you can find some of them in all of us, but in Johnny Isakson, you find all of those qualities. There is a saying: ``I would rather see a sermon than hear one.'' In Johnny Isakson, we see the sermon. Johnny, again, my friend, God bless you, Dianne, your family, and we will hold you close to our hearts. We will always be thankful for you, Thanksgiving, year-round, forever. God bless you. Thank you.

Mr. CARPER

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

Mr. CARPER

Mr. CARPER. Madam President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what some observers have called one of the best historically black colleges and universities in our country--Delaware State University in Dover, DE, home of the Hornets. For a number of years, I was a naval flight officer in the Vietnam war and then came back to the United States and moved to Delaware and got an MBA at the University of Delaware. Right away after that, I went to work at what became the Delaware Economic Office. We were headquartered at the campus of Delaware State College. Delaware State College was an HBCU and was not a well-funded college, not one that was in the favor, frankly, of the Governor and legislature, for the most part, and was a bit of a stepchild. I used to think: Boy, wouldn't it be great to be able to help transform Delaware State College into something historic, memorable, and outstanding. Later on, I would be elected Governor--about 15 years later--and have the chance to work with the fellow who was the president of Delaware State University at the time and to transform, with the help of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware State College into Delaware State University. Today, of all the HBCUs in the country, I think its latest rating is No. 5, and I think there are 70 or 75 of them in all. They just reported that their enrollment for the coming year will reach 5,000 students, all in undergraduate, graduate, master's and Ph.D. programs, which is a record. We are proud of the Hornets and the great job they are doing educating people. Last month, in one of my frequent visits to Delaware State, I took a campus tour unlike any other, from the cockpit of a brand-new Vulcanair V1.0 single-engine aircraft. We flew all over Kent County, north of Dover. We had a chance to do some approaches. It was a lot of fun, and it was basically a reminder that Delaware State provides undergraduate and graduate programs for all kinds of training and educational needs. One of the key ones right now and one of the most interesting, at least for a naval flight officer, is that Delaware State is the largest producer of pilots and aviation professionals of color in the country. I believe they have over 100 students and every one of them, when they graduate, has a job waiting for them. Some are pilots and others do a variety of work for aviation. Today, we have about 157 million people who go to work in this country, and we have about 5 million jobs where nobody will show up. One of those areas where we need people is in the aviation world, and Delaware State is providing that. When the plane landed earlier this year at the airport just north of Dover, I held a roundtable with the Delaware State University executive vice president and provost, Dr. Tony Allen. We talked with administrators and students about a bipartisan bill called the FUTURE Act, which was discussed on the floor today and in previous days. The FUTURE Act, as you will recall, was introduced by Senator Jones along with Senator Scott from South Carolina, and would provide a little over $255 million annually to minority-serving institutions of higher education including about $85 million to HBCUs for an additional 2 years through fiscal year 2021. Almost $900,000 of that money will go directly to Delaware State University. You might ask: What would Delaware State do with that money? They use this Federal funding to help support STEM and teacher education programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels and to ensure that students at Delaware State have access to the best research tools. Specifically, this funding is used to help modernize classrooms at DSU, to improve math instruction, and to help recruit young men of color to teach in K-through-12 classrooms so that all students have mentors they can look up to. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, only 2 percent of teachers in the American public school system are African- American men, but 20 percent or more of the students are African- American males. Think about that. A lot of these African-American males, frankly, haven't had some of the best mentors and role models in their lives growing up, and we have so few teachers of color that are minority male. The FUTURE Act funding, I think, is a good step for Congress to take to bridge that gap. I think it is a good example of how the Federal Government supports this critical mission at Delaware State and at HBCUs across the country. Back in early September, the House of Representatives did its job and voted to reauthorize this funding through the bipartisan FUTURE Act. Unfortunately, the Senate has not followed the lead of the House in this critical funding for HBCUs which lapsed on September 30. Before I yield to Senator Coons, I just wanted to say that my recollection is--and I might have this wrong, but I am looking for my staff, who would be sitting right here in front of me telling me if I had the right numbers--that 2 percent of teachers who are in public schools in America and I think in Delaware are men of color. They are African American. Almost 20 percent, maybe 25 percent, of the students in the public school system are people of color and about half of those are male. We need to do a better job. As Governor, I started a mentoring program. We recruited, when I was Governor, 10,000 mentors--a lot of them to work with children of color. A lot of them have grown up in homes where they didn't have a positive male role model in their life. That is why the mentoring program is so important. That is why we especially need minority male teachers who are African American. That is not all we need, but it is a big part of what we need. Over half of the minority male teachers that we have in Delaware in our schools were educated at Delaware State University-- over half--and we need more of them. Senator Coons has joined me on the floor. I am enormously proud of Delaware State University and the leadership they have today and in the past, and proud to have been an honorary Hornet, and proud to yield to my colleague, Senator Coons, who has been right there fighting for Delaware State University. I yield the floor.

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 think I will yield back the time.

Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, I rise to talk about something that is really important, I think not only to our Nation and our planet but to me and my family personally. As cochair and cofounder, along with Senator John Boozman of Arkansas, of the Senate Recycling Caucus, I am proud to stand side by side with all the Members of our caucus on the matter of recycling and its importance. Today Senator Boozman and I have introduced a resolution to commemorate tomorrow, November 15, as America Recycles Day. I would say that every day should be America Recycles Day. For a lot of our families, that is what it is. I don't have any idea how many millions or tens of millions of families recycle every day, but it is a lot of people, and we need even more. For more than two decades, communities across our country have come together on November 15, and they do so to observe America Recycles Day and to celebrate their commitment to recycling. First, I want to thank all of those who have worked hard to make America Recycles Day a success for all of these years. I have been a huge advocate of recycling for the past 50 years. I first recycled, I think, when I was a lieutenant JG in the Navy stationed in Moffett Field in California, which is close to Palo Alto. I took my recyclables to a warehouse there in Palo Alto and have never stopped. I don't go to the one in Palo Alto anymore, but we recycle all over Delaware. Frankly, when I go around the country, I recycle. I recycled on the train this morning, somewhere around Baltimore, coming down from Wilmington. I really welcomed the opportunity to collaborate--I want to say more than a decade ago--with Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine. Together, we helped create the Senate Recycling Caucus in 2006. Since the retirement of Senator Snowe 6 years ago, I have been fortunate enough to have as my running mate and cochair Senator Boozman of Arkansas. In this year alone, our caucus has held four briefings to learn more about the current state of recycling in this country and to discuss ways in which the Federal Government might play an even more important role in encouraging additional recycling in the years to come. The State and local governments are heavily involved in recycling, and there is a huge role for them--I say this as former Governor--a huge and important role for State and local governments to be involved in this, but there are also opportunities for the Federal Government to play a constructive role. We are doing that, and hopefully we will be able to do that even better in the days to come. My sister and I were born in a coal mining town in West Virginia. We grew up later on in Virginia, where I was a Boy Scout and a Civil Air Patrol cadet. In scouting, we were taught to ``leave no trace.'' When we were hunting or fishing, my dad, a big hunter and fisherman, used to say basically to leave no trace behind so no one would actually know we were there. I think that admonition is one that has stuck with me throughout my life. I believe we have a moral obligation to be devoted stewards of our environment and our planet and to leave our planet in even better shape than we found it. Lately, I have been thinking about another quote. This one I really like is from Martin Luther King that a lot of people have heard. It goes something like this: ``Everybody can be great, because anybody can serve.'' This call to service reminds me of recycling because almost anyone can help better protect our environment by reducing the waste we produce, and we can do that, in part, by recycling. I have a chart here that indicates just some of the things I recycled of late. This is not a green Ford Explorer. I bought my wife a car-- actually, she bought it years and years ago, probably 15 years ago. We call it the Ford ``exploder.'' It never exploded. It was a great car. She used it for 9 or 8 years or so and passed it down to our son, Christopher. He used it for a couple of years and passed it down to Ben, who used it for about 3 years. Finally, it just gave up the ghost. I took it one day to a place where they recycled cars. I drove in. They put it on a huge machine that actually weighed it. I think of--you know, you get on a scale to weigh yourself. Well, this was like a scale for vehicles, including our Ford Explorer. They wrote out a check literally before I left to actually pay, I think $900, for recycling the Explorer. People do that every day in Delaware and other places as well. We have a waste facility in our State of Delaware, and one of the things they oversee is recycling. About every month, from spring to the fall, they hold recycling events. A lot of times they are in school parking lots, maybe high school parking lots. They do them on Saturdays. One Saturday I called ahead, and I asked: Do you guys recycle dehumidifiers? We had a dehumidifier. It was about 20 years old. It had been in our basement forever. They said: Yes, we do that--which is great, and we checked on paints, paint thinners, oil-based paints, and stuff. They said: We are doing hazardous materials recycling. So I took several cans of paint thinners. We had all these outdoor lights from our house over the years that kind of died out on us, and I didn't know what to do with them. Sure enough, they took these household lights, as well as all kinds of cords and everything, paints and stuff. Every Monday in my neighborhood, we have big canisters outside where we can recycle all kinds of things. I always had water bottles in there and other kinds of cans and so forth, newspapers, you name it-- actually, compost too. If you actually add up what we put in our big recycling bin every Monday for pickup, you look at what we put in our compost in our backyard, and you compare that to the actual amount of trash that is picked up at our house on Thursdays, there are many times more recyclables and compostables than there is actually trash. We like to do that where I live. Hopefully, we will learn from other communities and States, and hopefully they will learn from us. One of the reasons I love recycling so much flows from my belief that all of us can do our part to preserve limited resources and reduce landfill input, while at the same time helping our environment and creating jobs. Mine is a little State. I tell people, even today, that we are the 49th largest State. That means only Rhode Island is smaller than us. We are about 100 miles long and 50 miles wide, so recycling is particularly important. We just doesn't have a lot of space for landfills. We have about 1 million people, and it is just a matter of having enough space. That space limitation is actually what prompted Delaware to pass the Universal Recycling Law in 2010. It requires that all waste haulers who provide residential trash collection also have to provide for the collection of recyclables. Think about that. That was the law we passed about 9 years ago, I think under the leadership of either Governor Markell or Governor Minner. We started a little bit of recycling. We started getting serious about it when I was Governor. They really ramped it up in the last decade, which is wonderful. Since the law's passage, the First State--that is Delaware, if you didn't know--has continued to recycle somewhere around 40 percent of all of our waste, most recently recycling a little bit more than 43 percent in 2017. I have a friend who, when you ask him how he is doing, he sometimes replies: Compared to what? Well, compared to more than a decade ago, in 2006, the First State diverted about half as much--23 percent of our waste from landfills. So we pretty much doubled that over the last 10 years. Hopefully, we will come close to doubling it again in the years to come. Today the recycling industry faces unprecedented challenges, especially with respect to plastics. The United States used to ship a lot of our recyclables, as you know, to China, but beginning in 2017, China decided to ban 24 types of what are called scrap imports and deployed strict contamination requirements for the scraps they will accept. They didn't want to have glass mixed up with metals, mixed up with plastic and paper. They are looking to reduce contamination like that, and they made their rules a whole lot stricter in that regard. Now, because of the policies China implemented in March of this year, local governments and municipalities are facing an uphill challenge to keep their recycling programs alive. According to the EPA, the United States recycles less than 22 percent of our discarded materials, which makes me feel better in Delaware because we are like twice the national average now. According to a peer-reviewed study published in 2017, more than 90 percent of plastic has never been recycled. Let me say that again. According to a peer-reviewed study published in 2017--2 years ago--more than 90 percent of plastic has never been recycled. That means we have only recycled about 9 percent of our plastic around the world. Of the 8.3 billion metric tons of plastic produced, 6.3 billion tons--that is about three-fourths of all that is produced--becomes waste. The rest gets recycled; the lion's share of it does not. Most of it ends up in landfills, and too much of it, unfortunately, ends up in our oceans and environment. I have a couple of our colleagues on the Environment and Public Works Committee. The Presiding Officer is one of them, and we have Senator Boozman. The three of us are all members on the committee. I think Senator Dan Sullivan from Alaska and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse--a Republican and a Democrat--have been working hard, along with Tom Udall from New Mexico, who is on the Commerce Committee, to try to address some of these plastic contaminations. If we continue down this path, the world economic forum predicts that we are on track to have plastic pollution in our oceans outweigh the fish in our world's ocean by 2050. Let that sink in for just a minute. By 2050, if we continue on the track we are on, we are going to end up having more plastic pollution by weight than fish in our world's oceans. That is not a good thing. Last time I checked, Delaware is blessed with more five-star beaches than any other State in America. If we don't begin to change our recycling habits, the waves that grace our pristine beaches will be better known for washing up plastic waste than giving surfers those big waves to ride. Almost every year I participate in something called Delaware's Annual Coastal Cleanup, along with thousands of people. We start down at Fenwick Island--right in the southernmost part of Delaware, a great beach town, and right north of the Ocean City, MD, line--to clean up our beaches and our waterfronts, from the Delaware and Maryland line all the way up almost to Pennsylvania in the north. While we are still waiting for the numbers from this year, last year, in 2018, my fellow volunteers and I--thousands of us--together collected 2.7 tons of waste, including plastic water bottles, straws, takeout containers, tires, and you name it. This was from just one weekend of work along 70 miles of coastline. Sadly, those 2.7 tons of trash collected last year in Delaware pale in comparison to what we are seeing around the world. Our 2.7 tons of trash is like the tip of the iceberg, compared to all the rest of this washing up in places around the world. I think we might have one more chart. Some of you have also heard of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, which now covers a surface area on the Earth 250 times larger than my whole State of Delaware and contains a whopping 80,000 tons of trash. Here it is. Can you imagine? Look at all that trash. It is out in the Pacific Ocean, and I would like to say that it is getting smaller. I don't think it is, but it needs to, and we need to be a part of that in making some progress. As we celebrate America Recycles Day tomorrow, I just want to encourage you to join Senator Boozman and join our colleagues and their constituents and join us in looking for new ways to dramatically increase recycling in our country and around the world. We need solutions that are a win-win for our economy on the one hand and for our environment on the other hand. I believe recycling is one of those win-win solutions. By the way, you may be surprised to learn that recycling and manufacturing industries are beneficial for our economy, accounting for more than 750,000 jobs and approximately $6.7 billion in tax revenues. That reminds me of one of my favorite sayings: ``It is possible to do good and to do well at the same time.'' It is possible to clean up our planet and make the planet safer and create jobs and economic opportunities. It is not a Hobson's choice. It is not one or the other. We can do both. I believe that if we work hard, we work together, and we work to leverage points of consensus rather than points of disagreement, we will continue to make progress. Recycling is something that I think every American can do to make a difference. I once read somewhere how many aluminum cans we drink and use and consume. It could be tea, it could be soda, it could be milk or variety of waters, but if people just would recycle their aluminum cans, it would have a terrific effect on, believe it or not, carbon dioxide. It is put up in the air. So that affects climate change as well. There are a lot of good effects. Recycling is something that every American can do to make a difference. I would ask you to start today. If you have already gotten started, figure out how to do better. On America Recycles Day, our children and our grandchildren will be glad that we did it in the years to come. Again, I am grateful to be here today with my dedicated cochair, my compadre, Senator Boozman. I thank him for his leadership and for providing, with our staff, great ideas to make this particular America Recycles Day an even bigger and better thing than before.